>I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all
This thread chain is in response to jerf's comment "transpiler shouldn't be a word" (simplifying his comment for brevity's sake)
This thread chain is in response to jerf's comment "transpiler shouldn't be a word" (simplifying his comment for brevity's sake)
> The word "transpiler" propagates the misunderstanding that there is something special about a compiler that emits machine code, that requires some special "compiler" techniques for special "compiler" purposes that are not necessary for "transpiler" purposes because "transpiling" requires a completely different set of techniques.
In context of the parent comment I read this to be a reaction to someone insisting that we use "transpiler" instead of "compiler"—more an observation of what is happening here than a call to stop using the word altogether.
> Ultimately, "compiler" isn't a bright shining line either... I can take anything and shade it down to the point where you might not be sure ("is that a 'compiler' or an 'interpreter'?"), but the "transpiler" term is trying to draw a line where there isn't even a seam in the landscape.