3 ms·
> the "transpiler" term is trying to draw a line where there isn't even a seam in the landscape. I don't think you have proven that it is a seamless landscape.
by norir 2y ago
> the "transpiler" term is trying to draw a line where there isn't even a seam in the landscape.
I don't think you have proven that it is a seamless landscape. In fact, I think that people's definitions have been remarkably consistent in spite of their fuzziness. The heart of what I have read is that most people understand a transpiler to be an intermediate text to text translation whose output is input to another tool. The common colloquial definition of a compiler is a text to machine code (for some definition of machine code) translation whose output is an executable program on a host platform. You can make an argument that every compiler is a transpiler or every transpiler is a compiler, but I think it requires a level of willful obtuseness or excessive pedantry to deny that there is something behind the concept of a transpiler. This discussion wouldn't even be happening if transpiler were a completely meaningless term.
- keybored 2y ago> , but I think it requires a level of willful obtuseness or excessive pedantry to deny that there is something behind the concept of a transpiler. Transpiler means something. Fuzzily. And it defines and denotes nothing of practical utility. > This discussion wouldn't even be happening if transpiler were a completely meaningless term This discussion wouldn’t even be happening if (people like) JS programmers didn’t insist on using terminology that implied some archaic view of technology, like “compilers emit machine code”—the distinction between high- or low-level target languages aren’t interesting anymore, even if it might have been novel to normie programmers in the 90’s or something.