Eh, that's one possible reading, but their actual take is more nuanced than that:
> The word "transpiler" propagates the misunderstanding that there is something special about a compiler that emits machine code, that requires some special "compiler" techniques for special "compiler" purposes that are not necessary for "transpiler" purposes because "transpiling" requires a completely different set of techniques.
In context of the parent comment I read this to be a reaction to someone insisting that we use "transpiler" instead of "compiler"—more an observation of what is happening here than a call to stop using the word altogether.
Someone argues that transpiler adds nothing (no nuance) over the original word. And your takeaway is that “I don't think anyone here is saying we shouldn't have the word "transpiler" at all” and that their original post is “more [of] an observation”? Does a person have to be all boorish and say that “you shouldn’t use that word” in order to convince you that they think it’s useless? Anyway this comment (newer than your comment) seems clear enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214781
> Ultimately, "compiler" isn't a bright shining line either... I can take anything and shade it down to the point where you might not be sure ("is that a 'compiler' or an 'interpreter'?"), but the "transpiler" term is trying to draw a line where there isn't even a seam in the landscape.
As no internet discussion is complete without a car analogy, car and automobile mean the same thing, but I see no reason why one of those terms needs to go away. Why can't transpiler and compiler peacefully coexist with the same meaning?
This thread chain is in response to jerf's comment "transpiler shouldn't be a word" (simplifying his comment for brevity's sake)