From: | Kartik Agaram <ak@akkartik.com> |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
Date: | Mon, 11 Oct 2021 11:23:33 -0700 |
Organization: | Compilers Central |
References: | 21-10-017 |
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 |
In-Reply-To: | 21-10-017 |
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]
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.