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: Sat, 16 Oct 2021 23:55:12 +0200 Organization: Compilers Central Lines: 16 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <21-10-028@comp.compilers> References: <21-10-017@comp.compilers> <21-10-018@comp.compilers> <21-10-025@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="22345"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: history Posted-Date: 16 Oct 2021 18:15:55 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: <21-10-025@comp.compilers> Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:2736 On 10/16/21 7:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > "To compile" is an attractive word in that it means putting stuff > together The same applies to "assemble" at machine level. I could imagine that at that time the result was more important than sophisticated handling of source code. A portable C compiler also is assumed to output executable modules where other compilers rely on a linker. DoDi [The Bell Labs portable C compiler output assembler source code, although most people didn't notice since it normally assembled it and threw the assembler code away. Last time I checked gcc and clang do the same. -John]