4 ms·

The reason we called it a transpiler here is that the output is source code in another language that is intended as the input to another compiler (well, the PHP

The reason we called it a transpiler here is that the output is source code in another language that is intended as the input to another compiler (well, the PHP5 runtime in this case, but same general idea). It doesn't execute code, or produce anything that is directly executable itself. It still needs another step. I agree the distinction is murky, though. When you run gcc, one stage will output asm, then send that to an assembler. But that isn't typically called transpiling. But on the other hand, I'd hardly call asm source code... So that's why we called it a transpiler. Don't disagree, just some context.

PuercoPop 12y ago
> It doesn't execute code, Because if it did, it would be an interpreter. > or produce anything that is directly executable itself. My PoV is that the CPU as a interpreter. compilers just translate. It appears to me that you are under the impression that there is something special about machine code, that compilers should generate machine code in order to be one. If that were the case I would disagree. I concur with the OP that transpiler should just be dropped, just use compiler.
Joky 12y ago
The distinction is murky, that's my point. I wonder who invented this term and when? A look at Google Trends shows how it is very recent: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=transpiler http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=transpiler