I agree with you that we've lost though: no amount of protest is going to make people stop using the word "transpiler".
It is generally assumed that a compiler goes from high level to low level, a decompiler low-to-high and a transpiler high-to-high. I guess in this case the transpiler is low-to-low, so maybe "transpiler" is just used to mean "samey-to-samey"
> At the point where we are calling things that compile to assembly "transpilers" I don't think there is any distinction left
"Transpiler" is grating (apparently).
does this seems like another instance of the annoying practice in our field of someone giving a name to a thing because they think it's new, though it's not (ie, source-to-source compilers have been around as long as source-to-bytecode compilers)--no need to re-name them
wish they would just stop it and get the hell off my lawn
Thankfully in most jurisdictions it is forbidden by law to do as such.
 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16076823
 - https://hackernoon.com/moving-to-es6-babel-and-transpilers-3...
The frustrating bit is that this is absolutely not true. A compiler is anything that parses some text according to some grammar, manipulates it, and emits it in a different format. While the most well-known and popular compilers are for C, to emit machine code, there's nothing inherent in the definition of a compiler that means it can't emit something human-readable.
Then the JS world came along and decided to use a new word to make it look more hip and cool.
A friendly FYI... the old word "transpiler" has been around since at least the 1960s. See the 2nd-to-last paragraph on the last page:
edit: Apparently 60's.
Is it YACT now?