3 ms·

I like your definitions, but all three of these could be called subsets of compilers.

by cestith 11mo ago

ablob 11mo ago
By the definitions given they can not, as no function subsumes another. By whatever you define as "compiler" maybe, but I see no point in this kind of interaction that essentially boils down to subsumtion to an entity you refuse to describe any further. Is there a merit to this? Can whatever you call compiler do more? Is it all three of the things mentioned combined? Who knows - as is stands I only know that you disagree with the definitions given/proposed.
- cestith 11mo ago
  I think they are fine definitions. I think a transpiler, a term rewriter, an assembler, a stand-alone optimizer, and even some pretty printers are subclasses of compilers. I define a compiler as something that takes an input in a language, does transformations, and produces a transformed output in a language. All of them do that, and they are more specific terms for types of compilers.
jrm4 11mo ago
Except that they do what useful words do; provide (more) useful information.
- cestith 11mo ago
  Fair. I don’t believe I said they were useless terms for differentiation of types of compilers, though. I just said they can all be thought of as a class as different types of compilers.
coldtea 11mo ago
So what? A car, a bike, and a truck can all be called subsets of vehicles, but we still have (and need) different words for each type.
- cestith 11mo ago
  Primates, canids, felids, and ungulates are all subsets of mammals and all have further subsets. Mammalia is further a subset of animalia. When we’re discussing categorizations, it’s often helpful to have multiple levels of categories. I’m not sure why you seem to be calling out specificity as a gotcha, when my argument isn’t at all that we don’t need multiple terms. It’s that we should consider these things in terms of similarity and specific differences, not throw away a term as useless as the article and its headline suggest.

I like your definitions, but all three of these could be called subsets of compilers.

by cestith 11mo ago

I like your definitions, but all three of these could be called subsets of compilers.

ablob 11mo ago

By the definitions given they can not, as no function subsumes another. By whatever you define as "compiler" maybe, but I see no point in this kind of interaction that essentially boils down to subsumtion to an entity you refuse to describe any further. Is there a merit to this? Can whatever you call compiler do more? Is it all three of the things mentioned combined? Who knows - as is stands I only know that you disagree with the definitions given/proposed.

cestith 11mo ago
I think they are fine definitions. I think a transpiler, a term rewriter, an assembler, a stand-alone optimizer, and even some pretty printers are subclasses of compilers. I define a compiler as something that takes an input in a language, does transformations, and produces a transformed output in a language. All of them do that, and they are more specific terms for types of compilers.

jrm4 11mo ago

Except that they do what useful words do; provide (more) useful information.

cestith 11mo ago
Fair. I don’t believe I said they were useless terms for differentiation of types of compilers, though. I just said they can all be thought of as a class as different types of compilers.

coldtea 11mo ago

So what? A car, a bike, and a truck can all be called subsets of vehicles, but we still have (and need) different words for each type.

cestith 11mo ago
Primates, canids, felids, and ungulates are all subsets of mammals and all have further subsets. Mammalia is further a subset of animalia. When we’re discussing categorizations, it’s often helpful to have multiple levels of categories. I’m not sure why you seem to be calling out specificity as a gotcha, when my argument isn’t at all that we don’t need multiple terms. It’s that we should consider these things in terms of similarity and specific differences, not throw away a term as useless as the article and its headline suggest.