Why? It's correct. You run a tool to convert the Web source to Pascal. If you want to compile TeX on modern computers, you run another conversion step to convert the Pascal to C, but Knuth used a real Pascal compiler when he made TeX.
Sure. All this is absolutely cool. What isn't is using questionable words like transpiler. Citations needed on whether that is an actual meaningful word (Wikipedia isn't it).
Can you give more details on why the term is ambiguous or ill-defined? I thought I knew what it meant, and a brief web search seems to reinforce my existing understanding (a source-to-source compiler), but I'm probably missing the subtleties. If you have a couple of minutes to clarify what your objection is, I'd love to learn more.
Why? It's correct. You run a tool to convert the Web source to Pascal. If you want to compile TeX on modern computers, you run another conversion step to convert the Pascal to C, but Knuth used a real Pascal compiler when he made TeX.
Sure. All this is absolutely cool. What isn't is using questionable words like transpiler. Citations needed on whether that is an actual meaningful word (Wikipedia isn't it).
Can you give more details on why the term is ambiguous or ill-defined? I thought I knew what it meant, and a brief web search seems to reinforce my existing understanding (a source-to-source compiler), but I'm probably missing the subtleties. If you have a couple of minutes to clarify what your objection is, I'd love to learn more.
1 reply →