Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Transpiler is a recently made up word, and describes something that's just as well described as a compiler. I wouldn't spend too much time hoping for a distinction here.



> Transpiler is a recently made up word

People keep saying this, but it's not true. You can find the word being used, in its modern meaning, as far back as 1964.

https://academic.oup.com/comjnl/article/7/1/28/558689/The-co...


Page 35 of this paper has this sentence.

One can also envisage a "transpiler" capable of converting a program from one such style into another with considerable generality.

Are there any other known citations of the term "transpiler"?


Yes, there is also this book from 1999, which talks about a Pascal to C 'transpiler' around as early as 1989.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vKQSBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR8&lpg=...


The actual author of p2c has the good taste to not call it a transpiler. https://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/p2c/historic/daves.index-2012J...


I'd thought a transpiler is a compiler where the source and target language are the same and the semantics of the program are preserved across transpilation (eg. Closure Compiler, Babel, LLVM optimization passes). That's a useful distinction: it implies that you can feed the output of a transpiler back into the input and at worse the result will be idempotent, and that you can mix transpiled output with raw input and the result will still be interpretable.

Evidently Wikipedia has a more broad definition of source-to-source compilation, which I'd agree is pretty meaningless. The distinction between high- and low-level languages is pretty arbitrary; you can write machine-language "source code", so in some ways all compilers are source-to-source.


We could newspeak it to be an endo-compiler (endo- is greek for internal/within). It runs well with endo-functor.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: