Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Kartik Agaram Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Are transpiling techniques different than compiling techniques? Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2021 11:23:33 -0700 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 12 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <21-10-018@comp.compilers> References: <21-10-017@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="39731"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: history Posted-Date: 12 Oct 2021 11:17:24 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com In-Reply-To: <21-10-017@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2726 On a slight tangent, I've never liked the term "compiler". I prefer "translator". "Translator" maps well with "interpreter" when talking about natural languages. That seems like a good reason to also use it for computer languages. Bringing it back to this thread, I think the difference between compilers and transpilers is largely meaningless. They're both just translators. [It is about 65 years too late to change "compiler". On the other hand, approximately nobody uses "transpiler" and we can use something less cute like translator, or the classic SIFT. -John]