> , 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

> , 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.