[tlrobinson]

Should this Wikipedia page not exist then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler

[monocasa]

I mean, it should exist according to wiki's rules since there are so many people using the term. Wiki intentionally doesn't try to independently verify any research, but just serves as a collation of ideas.

What I would do is ask 'what part there is any different than any other compiler?'

[tlrobinson]

It's a type of compiler. Just like a truck is a type of vehicle, and a car is another type of vehicle.

[omeid2]

They both have four wheels and transport atoms.

Why do you think it is helpful to be unambiguous between atoms that make up a human or atoms of any goods in the back of a truck? /s

[monocasa]

Except that there's a true formal (in fact legal) distinction between a car and a truck (they have different emissions standards). The whole distinction between a 'transpilers' and other compilers on the other hand is 'what is the user going to do with the output'.

[tlrobinson]

That's not the disinction I've seen. I like Wikipedia's:

> translates between programming languages that operate at approximately the same level of abstraction

That's fairly straightforward, though a bit subjective (which doesn't preclude a word from having meaning)

[sigjuice]

It shouldn't. There are several issues with the article and it should be deleted. None of the cited references actually support transpiler or source-to-source compiler as credible or noteworthy.