By that definition every compiler that generates assembly language is a transpiler, rendering the term meaningless.

Perhaps you don't think you could "just as well" program in assembly language, but there are many many people who do, perhaps not in your own problem domain.

>Perhaps you don't think you could "just as well" program in assembly language, but there are many many people who do, perhaps not in your own problem domain.

I don't think it matters if there are "many people who do" -- as long as they are still a small minority compared to those who don't. After all you can find people believing everything, I'm sure some are even writing web apps in Assembly.

That said, C to Assembly (as opposed to binary executive) could be said to be transpiling too -- from "portable assembly to assembly".

So the number of people doing something is how you determine the definition of a word?

That really makes no sense.

Err, number of people agreeing on a specific meaning is exactly what determines the definitions of a word.

Same for usage of things.

There were always be outliers for whom a thing is better used for Y rather than X, but in the end is what the majority sees the tool as useful for that determines how it's defined (in casual use, dictionaries etc).