flâneur

Formally speaking, "Transpiler" is a useless word | Rachit Nigam

people.csail.mit.edu · 2,545 words · saved by 1 readers

I find “transpiler” to be a useless word: depending on the speaker, it can mean anything from a text replacement tool to a sophisticated optimizing compiler; I would much rather just use “compiler” to describe these systems. In reading this older post, someone pointed me to the dichotomy between lumpers and splitters: people who try to group similar things vs. people who try to separate out different things. I think this is an interesting idea and made me want to pen down, rigorously and formally, why I think compilers and transpilers are the same thing. So, here is the game plan: I will introduce a couple of ideas that the programming languages (PL) community developed to carefully think about tools that manipulate programs. I will use these ideas to give three formal definitions of the word “transpiler” and work through why I do not like them. Even if you disagree, I hope that the formal framework provides a more rigorous ground for debate! Concrete syntax is the first layer of a pro

Formally speaking, "Transpiler" is a useless word | Rachit Nigam Formally speaking, "Transpiler" is a useless word Tools of math to wage a pointless war December 30, 2025 I find “transpiler” to be a useless word : depending on the speaker, it can mean anything from a text replacement tool to a sophisticated optimizing compiler; I would much rather just use “compiler” to describe these systems. In reading this older post, someone pointed me to the dichotomy between lumpers and splitters: people who try to group similar things vs. people who try to separate out different things. I think this is

saved by

related reading