Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Hans-Peter Diettrich Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Are transpiling techniques different than compiling techniques? Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2021 20:05:34 +0200 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 20 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <21-10-022@comp.compilers> References: <21-10-017@comp.compilers> <21-10-018@comp.compilers> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="19879"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: translator Posted-Date: 12 Oct 2021 22:13:02 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: <21-10-018@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2730 On 10/11/21 8:23 PM, Kartik Agaram wrote: > 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. I'd classify both like with lexer and parser by I/O type: A compiler translates from source text into *binary* code, the other one into another source *text*. The "transpiler" IMO is a relict from the time when translation of human speech was the domain of humans, to deprecate the output of translation programs. While automated translation really sucked for decades, in the last years I found human translations and presentations often less precise or meaningful than automated translation. DoDi