I think, by now "transpile" just means "compile, but in web development".
Because, as we all know, web development you never compile things... /s
Because, as we all know, web development you never compile things... /s
We're fresh and new and iterating quickly on our MVP, so we don't have time to wait for long compilation time. Instead we transpile our code and run it in a serverless environment, a docker container or a browser.
... Waiting for tens of seconds, or minutes, until all the JS libs are loaded into their GB's of RAM by their GHz multicore processors while those old veterans compiled all their stuff within a second on their ancient Turbo Pascal on their ancient MHz CPU's with barely noticable 64K RAM :-)
for those who aren't familiar with transpiling, in this case it's kind of a legitimate use of the term: taking one flavor of compiled code (java bytecode, binary stuff that runs on a jvm) and translating that directly to another type of compiled code (wasm, binary stuff that runs in a browser)
> A compiler is computer software that transforms computer code written in one programming language (the source language) into another programming language (the target language).
Later on it lists some classes of compilers that could be called by more specific names than just "compiler".
"Compilation means taking one type of compiled code and translating it into another type of compiled code."
Here, we start with Java byte code which isn't exactly human-readable, hence the use of the term "transpile". But then again, you're right that on some abstract level, it all is just a translation process from one representation to another.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
My (less sarcastic) understanding was that "compiling" means translation from a "high-level"/"humans-first" to a "low-level"/"machines-first" language while "transpiling" is translation from one high-level to another high-level language.
That would make gcc, clang (mostly) and javac clear examples of compilers while GWT, coffeescript and the C preprocessor would be transpilers.
I guess TeaVM would fit neither by those definition but it would definitely be closer to a transpiler.
Then again, I believe GWT calls itself a compiler, so I got nothing...
Actually, there is no such thing as a "transpiler". There are only compilers which are programs which translate from one regular language A into another regular language B. It doesn't matter whether B is a high-level language or low-level machine code.
In any event, is it so bad to have another word for source-to-source compilation? What is it that angers you about it?
If you compile C to Assembler then you compile from one code (C) to another code (Asm, or machine code which is the compact form of Asm). What's the difference to a "transpiler"?
Wikipedia states that the difference is just the (almost) equal level of abstraction. I would call such a thing a high-level source-to-source compiler. The word "transpiler" is uncertain and barely known, hence the people here who ask what a transpiler is.
Cross-compilation is another thing since it means compiling on one platform for another platform. In all three cases we deal with compilers from one regular language A into another regular language B.
cross-compile: convert from one language to another that will be executed on another platform (e.g. compiling something on a linux box to be ran on a windows machine)
transpile: convert from one (typically high level) source language to another (high level) source language