Constructing Automated Code Translation Systems: Principles, Techniques, and Challenges

1. Introduction

Automated code translation, often referred to as transpilation or source-to-source compilation, involves converting source code from one programming language to another.¹ The primary objective is to produce target code that is semantically equivalent to the source, preserving its original functionality.³ This field has gained significant traction due to the pressing needs of modern software development, including migrating legacy systems to contemporary languages ⁵, improving performance by translating from high-level to lower-level languages ⁷, enhancing security and memory safety (e.g., migrating C to Rust ⁹), and enabling cross-platform compatibility.¹² Manually translating large codebases is often a resource-intensive, time-consuming, and error-prone endeavor, potentially taking years.⁹ Automated tools, therefore, offer a compelling alternative to reduce cost and risk.¹³

Building a robust code translation tool requires a multi-stage process analogous to traditional compilation.² This typically involves:

1. Analysis: Parsing the source code to understand its structure and meaning, often involving lexical, syntactic, and semantic analysis.⁴

2. Transformation: Converting the analyzed representation into a form suitable for the target language, which may involve mapping language constructs, libraries, and paradigms, potentially using intermediate representations.¹⁶

3. Synthesis: Generating the final source code in the target language from the transformed representation.⁴

This report delves into the fundamental principles, techniques, and inherent challenges associated with constructing such automated code translation systems, drawing upon established compiler theory and recent advancements, particularly those involving Large Language Models (LLMs).

2. Fundamental Principles: Parsing and Abstract Syntax Tree Generation

The initial phase of any code translation process involves understanding the structure of the source code. This is achieved through parsing, which transforms the linear sequence of characters in a source file into a structured representation, typically an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST).

2.1. Parsing: From Source Text to Structure

Parsing typically involves two main stages:

1. Lexical Analysis (Lexing/Tokenization): The source code text is scanned and broken down into a sequence of tokens—the smallest meaningful units of the language, such as keywords (e.g., if, while), identifiers (variable/function names), operators (+, =), literals (numbers, strings), and punctuation (parentheses, semicolons).² Tools like Flex are often used for generating lexical analyzers.¹⁹

2. Syntax Analysis (Parsing): The sequence of tokens is analyzed against the grammatical rules of the source language, typically defined using a Context-Free Grammar (CFG).² This stage verifies if the token sequence forms a valid program structure according to the language's syntax. The output of this phase is often a Parse Tree or Concrete Syntax Tree (CST), which represents the complete syntactic structure of the code, including all tokens and grammatical derivations.¹⁸ If the parser cannot recognize the structure, it reports syntax errors.²³

2.2. Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs)

While a CST meticulously represents the source syntax, it often contains details irrelevant for semantic analysis and translation, such as parentheses for grouping or specific keyword tokens. Therefore, compilers and transpilers typically convert the CST into an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST).¹⁸

An AST is a more abstract, hierarchical tree representation focusing on the structural and semantic content of the code.¹⁸ Each node in the AST represents a meaningful construct like an expression, statement, declaration, or type.¹⁸ Key properties distinguish ASTs from CSTs ¹⁸:

• Abstraction: ASTs omit syntactically necessary but semantically redundant elements like punctuation (semicolons, braces) and grouping parentheses. The hierarchical structure inherently captures operator precedence and statement grouping.¹⁸

• Conciseness: ASTs are generally smaller and have fewer node types than their corresponding CSTs.²¹

• Semantic Focus: They represent the core meaning and structure, making them more suitable for subsequent analysis and transformation phases.¹⁸

• Editability: ASTs serve as a data structure that can be programmatically traversed, analyzed, modified, and annotated with additional information (e.g., type information, source code location for error reporting) during compilation or translation.²⁰

The AST serves as a crucial intermediate representation in the translation pipeline. It facilitates semantic analysis, optimization, and the eventual generation of target code or another intermediate form.⁷ A well-designed AST must preserve essential information, including variable types, declaration locations, the order of executable statements, and the structure of operations.²⁰

2.3. AST Generation Tools and Libraries

Generating ASTs is a standard part of compiler front-ends. Various tools and libraries exist to facilitate this process for different languages:

• JavaScript: The JavaScript ecosystem offers numerous parsers capable of generating ASTs conforming (often) to the ESTree specification.²³ Popular examples include Acorn ¹⁸, Esprima ¹⁸, Espree (used by ESLint) ²³, and @typescript-eslint/typescript-estree (used by Prettier).²³ Libraries like abstract-syntax-tree ²⁵ provide utilities for parsing (using Meriyah), traversing (using estraverse), transforming, and generating code from ASTs. Tools like Babel heavily rely on AST manipulation for transpiling modern JavaScript to older versions.²³ AST Explorer is a valuable online tool for visualizing ASTs generated by various parsers.²⁰

• Python: Python includes a built-in ast module that allows parsing Python code into an AST and programmatically inspecting or modifying it.²⁶ The compile() built-in function can generate an AST, and the ast module provides classes representing grammar nodes and helper functions for processing trees.²⁶ Libraries like pycparser exist for parsing C code within Python.²⁷

• Java: Libraries like JavaParser ¹⁸ and Spoon ²⁰ provide capabilities to parse Java code into ASTs and offer APIs for analysis and transformation. Eclipse JDT also provides AST manipulation features.²⁰

• C/C++: Compilers like Clang provide libraries (libclang) for parsing C/C++ and accessing their ASTs.¹⁸

• General: Parser generators like ANTLR ²⁹ can be used to create parsers (and thus AST builders) for custom or existing languages based on grammar definitions.

Some languages offer direct AST access and manipulation capabilities through metaprogramming features like macros (Lisp, Scheme, Racket, Nim, Template Haskell, Julia) or dedicated APIs.³⁰ This allows developers to perform code transformations directly during the compilation process.³⁰

The process of generating an AST from source code is fundamental to understanding and transforming code. While CSTs capture the exact syntax, ASTs provide a more abstract and manipulable representation ideal for the subsequent stages of semantic analysis, optimization, and code generation required in a transpiler.¹⁸

3. Semantic Analysis and Intermediate Representation (IR)

Once the source code's syntactic structure is captured in an AST, the next crucial step is semantic analysis – understanding the meaning of the code. This phase often involves translating the AST into one or more Intermediate Representations (IRs) that facilitate deeper analysis, optimization, and eventual translation to the target language.

3.1. Semantic Analysis

Semantic analysis goes beyond syntax to check the program's meaning and consistency according to the language rules.² Key tasks include:

• Type Checking: Verifying that operations are performed on compatible data types.¹⁵ This involves inferring or checking the types of variables and expressions and ensuring they match operator expectations or function signatures.

• Symbol Table Management: Creating and managing symbol tables that store information about identifiers (variables, functions, classes, etc.), such as their type, scope, and memory location.¹⁹

• Scope Analysis: Resolving identifier references to their correct declarations based on scoping rules (e.g., lexical scope).¹⁹

• Semantic Rule Enforcement: Checking for other language-specific semantic constraints (e.g., ensuring variables are declared before use, checking access control modifiers).

Semantic analysis often annotates the AST with additional information, such as inferred types or links to symbol table entries.²⁰ This enriched AST (or a subsequent IR) forms the basis for understanding the program's behavior. For code translation, accurately capturing the source code's semantics is paramount.¹³ Failures in understanding semantics, especially subtle differences between languages or complex constructs like parallel programming models, are major sources of errors in translation.³⁴ Techniques like Syntax-Directed Translation (SDT) explicitly associate semantic rules and actions with grammar productions, allowing semantic information (attributes) to be computed and propagated through the parse tree during analysis.¹⁹

3.2. Intermediate Representation (IR)

Optimizing compilers and sophisticated transpilers rarely work directly on the AST throughout the entire process. Instead, they typically translate the AST into one or more Intermediate Representations (IRs).¹⁵ An IR is a representation of the program that sits between the source language and the target language (or machine code).¹⁹

Using an IR offers several advantages ¹⁷:

• Modularity: It decouples the front end (source language analysis) from the back end (target language generation). A single front end can target multiple back ends (different target languages or architectures), and a single back end can support multiple front ends (different source languages) by using a common IR.⁸

• Optimization: IRs are often designed to be simpler and more regular than source languages, making it easier to perform complex analyses and optimizations (e.g., data flow analysis, loop optimizations).¹⁵

• Abstraction: IRs hide details of both the source language syntax and the target machine architecture, providing a more abstract level for transformation.¹⁷

• Portability: Machine-independent IRs enhance the portability of the compiler/transpiler itself and potentially the compiled code (e.g., Java bytecode, WASM).¹⁹

However, introducing IRs also has potential drawbacks, including increased compiler complexity, potentially longer compilation times, and additional memory usage to store the IR.¹⁹

3.3. Desirable Properties and Types of IRs

A good IR typically exhibits several desirable properties ¹⁷:

• Simplicity: Fewer constructs make analysis easier.

• Machine Independence: Avoids encoding target-specific details like calling conventions.

• Language Independence: Avoids encoding source-specific syntax or semantics.

• Transformation Support: Facilitates code analysis and rewriting for optimization or translation.

• Generation Support: Strikes a balance between high-level (easy to generate from AST) and low-level (easy to generate target code from).

Meeting all these goals simultaneously is challenging, leading many compilers to use multiple IRs at different levels of abstraction ⁸:

• High-Level IR (HIR): Close to the AST, preserving source-level constructs like loops and complex expressions. Suitable for high-level optimizations like inlining.¹⁷ ASTs themselves can be considered a very high-level IR.²⁴

• Mid-Level IR (MIR): More abstract than HIR, often language and machine-independent. Common forms include:

  • Tree-based IR: Lower-level than AST, often with explicit memory operations and simplified control flow (jumps/branches), but potentially retaining complex expressions.¹⁷

  • Three-Address Code (TAC) / Quadruples: Represents computations as sequences of simple instructions, typically result = operand1 op operand2.² Each instruction has at most three addresses (two sources, one destination). Often organized into basic blocks and control flow graphs. Static Single Assignment (SSA) form is a popular variant where each variable is assigned only once, simplifying data flow analysis.¹⁷ LLVM IR is conceptually close to TAC/SSA.⁸

  • Stack Machine Code: Instructions operate on an implicit operand stack (e.g., push, pop, add). Easy to generate from ASTs and suitable for interpreters.¹⁷ Examples include Java Virtual Machine (JVM) bytecode ¹⁷ and Common Intermediate Language (CIL).³⁹

  • Continuation-Passing Style (CPS): Often used in functional language compilers, makes control flow explicit.¹⁷

• Low-Level IR (LIR): Closer to the target machine's instruction set, potentially using virtual registers or target-specific constructs, but still abstracting some details.⁸

The choice of IR(s) significantly impacts the design and capabilities of the translation tool. For source-to-source translation, a mid-level, language-independent IR is often desirable as it provides a common ground between diverse source and target languages.¹⁷ Using C source code itself as a target IR is another strategy, leveraging existing C compilers for final code generation but potentially limiting optimization opportunities.³⁹

3.4. Role of IR in Modern Translation Approaches

IRs play a vital role, particularly in bridging semantic gaps, which is a major challenge for automated translation, especially when using machine learning models.³⁴ Recent research leverages compiler IRs, like LLVM IR, to augment training data for Neural Machine Translation (NMT) models used in code translation.⁷ Because IRs like LLVM IR are designed to be largely language-agnostic, they provide a representation that captures program semantics more directly than source code syntax.⁸ Training models on both source code and its corresponding IR helps them learn better semantic alignments between different languages and improve their understanding of the underlying program logic, leading to more accurate translations, especially for language pairs with less parallel training data.⁷ Frameworks like IRCoder explicitly leverage compiler IRs to facilitate cross-lingual transfer and build more robust multilingual code generation models.⁴¹

In essence, semantic analysis clarifies the what of the source code, while IRs provide a structured, potentially language-agnostic how that facilitates transformation and generation into the target language.

4. Mapping Language Constructs and Libraries

A core task in code translation is establishing correspondences between the elements of the source language and the target language. This involves mapping not only fundamental language constructs but also programming paradigms and, critically, the libraries and APIs the code relies upon.

4.1. Mapping Language Constructs

The translator must define how basic building blocks of the source language are represented in the target language. This includes:

• Data Types: Mapping primitive types (e.g., int, float, boolean) and complex types (arrays, structs, classes, lists, sets, maps, tuples).³¹ Differences in type systems (e.g., static vs. dynamic typing, nullability rules) pose challenges. Type inference might be needed when translating from dynamically-typed languages.⁴⁵

• Expressions: Translating arithmetic, logical, and relational operations, function calls, member access, etc. Operator precedence and semantics must be preserved.

• Statements: Mapping assignment statements, conditional statements (if-else), loops (for, while), jump statements (break, continue, return, goto), exception handling (try-catch), etc..⁴³

• Control Flow: Ensuring the sequence of execution, branching, and looping logic is accurately replicated.³¹ Control-flow analysis helps understand the program's structure.³¹

• Functions/Procedures/Methods: Translating function definitions, parameter passing mechanisms (call-by-value, call-by-reference), return values, and scoping rules.³³

Syntax-Directed Translation (SDT) provides a formal framework for this mapping, associating translation rules (semantic actions) with grammar productions.²² These rules specify how to construct the target representation (e.g., target code fragments, IR nodes, or AST annotations) based on the source constructs recognized during parsing.² However, subtle semantic differences between seemingly similar constructs across languages require careful handling.⁴³

4.2. Mapping Programming Paradigms

Translating code between languages often involves bridging different programming paradigms, such as procedural, object-oriented (OOP), and functional programming (FP).³³ Each paradigm has distinct principles and ways of structuring code ³³:

• Procedural: Focuses on procedures (functions) that operate on data. Emphasizes a sequence of steps.³³ (e.g., C, Fortran, Pascal).

• Object-Oriented (OOP): Organizes code around objects, which encapsulate data (attributes) and behavior (methods).³³ Key principles include abstraction, encapsulation, inheritance, and polymorphism.³³ (e.g., Java, C++, C#, Python).

• Functional (FP): Treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions, emphasizing immutability, pure functions (no side effects), and function composition.³³ (e.g., Haskell, Lisp, F#, parts of JavaScript/Python/Scala).

Mapping between paradigms is more complex than translating constructs within the same paradigm.⁵¹ It often requires significant architectural restructuring:

• Procedural to OOP: Might involve identifying related data and procedures and encapsulating them into classes.

• OOP to Functional: Might involve replacing mutable state with immutable data structures, converting methods to pure functions, and using higher-order functions for control flow.

• Functional to Imperative/OOP: Might require introducing state variables and explicit loops to replace recursion or higher-order functions.

This type of translation moves beyond local code substitution and requires a deeper understanding of the source program's architecture and how to best express its intent using the target paradigm's idioms.⁵¹ The choice of paradigm can significantly impact code structure, maintainability, and suitability for certain tasks (e.g., FP for concurrency, OOP for GUIs).³³ Many modern languages are multi-paradigm, allowing developers to mix styles, which adds another layer of complexity to translation.⁴⁷ The inherent differences in how paradigms handle state and computation mean that a direct, mechanical translation is often suboptimal or even impossible, necessitating design choices during the migration process.

4.3. Mapping Standard Libraries and APIs

Perhaps one of the most significant practical challenges in code translation is handling dependencies on external libraries and APIs.⁵⁴ Source code relies heavily on standard libraries (e.g., Java JDK, C#.NET Framework, Python Standard Library) and third-party packages for functionality ranging from basic I/O and data structures to complex domain-specific tasks.⁵⁴ Successful migration requires mapping these API calls from the source ecosystem to equivalent ones in the target ecosystem.⁵⁴

This mapping is difficult because ⁵⁴:

• APIs often have different names even for similar functionality (e.g., java.util.Iterator vs. System.Collections.IEnumerator).

• Functionality might be structured differently (e.g., one method in the source maps to multiple methods in the target, or vice-versa).

• Underlying concepts or behaviors might differ subtly.

• The sheer number of APIs makes manual mapping exhaustive, error-prone, and difficult to keep complete.⁵⁴

Several strategies exist for API mapping:

• Manual Mapping: Developers explicitly define the correspondence between source and target APIs. This provides precision but is extremely labor-intensive and scales poorly.⁵⁴

• Rule-Based Mapping: Using predefined transformation rules or databases that encode known API equivalences. Limited by the coverage and accuracy of the rules.

• Statistical/ML Mapping (Vector Representations): This approach learns semantic similarities based on how APIs are used in large codebases.⁵⁴

  1. Learn Embeddings: Use models like Word2Vec to generate vector representations (embeddings) for APIs in both source and target languages based on their co-occurrence patterns and usage context in vast code corpora. APIs used similarly tend to have closer vectors.⁵⁴

  2. Learn Transformation: Train a linear transformation (matrix) to map vectors from the source language's vector space to the target language's space, using a small set of known seed mappings as training data.⁵⁴

  3. Predict Mappings: For a given source API, transform its vector using the learned matrix and find the closest vector(s) in the target space using cosine similarity to predict equivalent APIs.⁵⁴

  4. This method has shown promise, achieving reasonable accuracy (e.g., ~43% top-1, ~73% top-5 for Java-to-C#) without requiring large parallel code corpora, effectively capturing functional similarity even with different names.⁵⁴ The success of this technique underscores that understanding the semantic role and usage context of an API is more critical than relying on superficial name matching for effective cross-language mapping.

• LLM-Based Mapping: LLMs can potentially translate code involving API calls by inferring intent and generating code using appropriate target APIs.⁴⁶ However, this relies heavily on the LLM's training data and reasoning capabilities and requires careful validation.⁵⁶ Techniques like LLMLift use LLMs to map source operations to an intermediate representation composed of target DSL operators defined in Python.⁵⁶

• API Mapping Tools/Strategies: Concepts from data mapping tools (often used for databases) can be relevant, emphasizing user-friendly interfaces, integration capabilities, flexible schema/type handling, transformation support, and error handling.⁵⁷ Specific domains like geospatial analysis have dedicated mapping libraries (e.g., Folium, Geopandas, Mapbox) that might need translation equivalents.⁵⁸ API gateways can map requests between different API structures ⁶⁰, and conversion tracking APIs involve mapping events across platforms.⁶¹

The following table compares different API mapping strategies:

Strategy	Description	Pros	Cons	Key Techniques/Tools	Relevant Snippets
Manual Mapping	Human experts define explicit 1:1 or complex correspondences between source and target APIs.	High potential precision for defined mappings; Handles complex/subtle cases.	Extremely time-consuming, error-prone, hard to maintain completeness, scales poorly.	Expert knowledge, documentation analysis, mapping tables/spreadsheets.	54
Rule-Based Mapping	Uses predefined transformation rules or a database of known equivalences to map APIs.	Automated for known rules; Consistent application.	Limited by rule coverage; Rules can be complex to write/maintain; May miss non-obvious mappings.	Transformation engines (TXL, Stratego/XT 65), custom scripts, mapping databases.	65
Statistical/ML (Vectors)	Learns API embeddings from usage context; learns a transformation between vector spaces to predict mappings.	Automated; Can find non-obvious semantic similarities; Doesn't require large parallel corpora.	Requires large monolingual corpora; Needs seed mappings for training transformation; Accuracy is probabilistic.	Word2Vec/Doc2Vec, Vector space transformation (linear algebra), Cosine similarity, Large code corpora (GitHub).	54
LLM-Based Generation	LLM generates target code using appropriate APIs based on understanding the source code's intent.	Can potentially handle complex mappings implicitly; Generates idiomatic usage patterns.	No correctness guarantees; Prone to errors/hallucinations; Relies on training data coverage; Needs validation.	Large Language Models (GPT, Claude, Llama), Prompt Engineering, IR generation (LLMLift 56).	46

4.4. Managing Dependencies Post-Migration

Successfully mapping libraries is only part of the challenge; managing these dependencies throughout the migration process and beyond is crucial for the resulting application's stability, security, and maintainability.⁵⁵ Dependency management is not merely a final cleanup step but an integral consideration influencing migration strategy, tool selection, and long-term viability.

Key aspects include:

• Identification: Accurately identifying all direct and transitive dependencies in the source project.⁵⁵

• Selection: Choosing appropriate and compatible target libraries.

• Integration: Updating build scripts (e.g., Maven, Gradle, package.json) and configurations to use the new dependencies.⁶⁷

• Versioning: Handling potential version conflicts and ensuring compatibility. Using lockfiles (package-lock.json, yarn.lock) ensures consistent dependency trees across environments.⁶⁹ Understanding semantic versioning (Major.Minor.Patch) helps gauge the impact of updates.⁶⁹

• Maintenance: Regularly auditing dependencies for updates and security vulnerabilities.⁵⁵ Outdated dependencies are a major source of security risks.⁵⁵

• Automation: Leveraging tools like GitHub Dependabot, Snyk, Renovate, or OWASP Dependency-Check to automate vulnerability scanning and update suggestions/pull requests.⁵⁵ Integrating these checks into CI/CD pipelines catches issues early.⁵⁵

• Strategies: Using private repositories for better control ⁷⁰, creating abstraction layers to isolate dependencies ⁶⁶, deciding whether to fork, copy, or use package managers for external code.⁷² Thorough planning across pre-migration, migration, and post-migration phases is essential.⁷³

Failure to manage dependencies effectively during and after migration can lead to broken builds, runtime errors, security vulnerabilities, and significant maintenance overhead, potentially negating the benefits of the translation effort itself.

5. Generating Target Code

The final stage of the transpiler pipeline involves synthesizing the target language source code based on the transformed intermediate representation (AST or IR). This involves not only generating syntactically correct code but also striving for code that is idiomatic and maintainable in the target language.

5.1. Code Synthesis Process

Code synthesis, often referred to as code generation in this context (though distinct from compiling to machine code), takes the final AST or IR—which has undergone semantic analysis, transformation, and potentially optimization—and converts it back into textual source code.¹⁵ This process essentially reverses the parsing step and is sometimes called "unparsing" or "pretty-printing".²⁰

The core task involves traversing the structured representation (AST/IR) and emitting corresponding source code strings for each node according to the target language's syntax.²⁹ Various techniques can be employed:

• Template-Based Generation: Using predefined templates for different language constructs.

• Direct AST/IR Node Conversion: Implementing logic to convert each node type into its string representation.

• Target Language AST Generation: Constructing an AST that conforms to the target language's structure and then using an existing pretty-printer or code generator for that language to produce the final source code.⁷⁶ This approach can simplify ensuring syntactic correctness and leveraging standard formatting.

• Syntax-Directed Translation (SDT): Semantic actions associated with grammar rules can directly generate code fragments during the parsing or tree-walking phase.²²

• LLM Generation: Large Language Models generate code directly based on prompts, potentially incorporating intermediate steps or feedback.⁹

5.2. Ensuring Syntactic Correctness

A fundamental requirement is that the generated code must be syntactically valid according to the target language's grammar.¹³ Errors at this stage would prevent the translated code from even being compiled or interpreted.

Using the target language's own compiler infrastructure, such as its parser to build a target AST or its pretty-printer, can significantly aid in guaranteeing syntactic correctness.⁷⁶ If generating code directly as strings, the generator logic must meticulously adhere to the target language's syntax rules.

LLM-generated code frequently contains syntax errors, often necessitating iterative repair loops where the output is fed back to the LLM along with compiler error messages until valid syntax is produced.¹³

5.3. Achieving Idiomatic Code

Beyond mere syntactic correctness, a key goal for usable transpiled code is idiomaticity. Idiomatic code is code that "looks and feels" natural to a developer experienced in the target language.⁷⁵ It adheres to the common conventions, best practices, preferred libraries, and typical patterns of the target language community.⁷

Generating idiomatic code is crucial because unidiomatic code, even if functionally correct, can be:

• Hard to Read and Understand: Violating conventions increases cognitive load for developers maintaining the code.⁷⁵

• Difficult to Maintain and Extend: It may not integrate well with existing target language tooling or libraries.

• Less Efficient: It might not leverage the target language's features optimally.

• Lacking Benefits: It might fail to utilize the advantages (e.g., safety guarantees in Rust) that motivated the migration in the first place.⁹

Rule-based transpilers often struggle with idiomaticity, tending to produce literal translations that mimic the source language's structure, resulting in "Frankenstein code".⁷ Achieving idiomaticity requires moving beyond construct-by-construct mapping to understand and translate higher-level patterns and intent. Techniques include:

• Idiom Recognition and Mapping: As discussed previously, identifying common patterns (idioms) in the source code and mapping them to equivalent, standard idioms in the target language during the AST transformation phase is a powerful technique.⁷⁵ This requires building a catalog of source and target idioms, potentially aided by mining algorithms like FactsVector.⁷⁵ For example, translating a specific COBOL file-reading loop idiom directly to an idiomatic Java BufferedReader loop.⁷⁵

• Leveraging LLMs: LLMs, trained on vast amounts of human-written code, have a strong tendency to generate idiomatic output that reflects common patterns in their training data.⁷ This is often cited as a major advantage over purely rule-based systems.

• Refinement and Post-processing: Applying subsequent transformation passes specifically aimed at improving idiomaticity, potentially using static analysis feedback or even LLMs in a refinement loop.⁹

• Utilizing Type Information: Explicit type hints in the source language (if available or inferable) can resolve ambiguities and guide the generator towards more appropriate and idiomatic target constructs.³⁵

• Target Abstraction Usage: Generating code that effectively uses the target language's higher-level abstractions (e.g., Java streams ⁷⁵, Rust iterators) instead of simply replicating low-level source loops.

• Code Formatting: Applying consistent and conventional code formatting (indentation, spacing, line breaks) using tools like Prettier or built-in formatters is essential for readability.²³

There exists a natural tension between the goals of generating provably correct code (perfectly preserving source semantics) and generating idiomatic code. Literal, construct-by-construct translations are often easier to verify but result in unidiomatic code. Conversely, transformations aimed at idiomaticity often involve abstractions and restructuring that can subtly alter behavior, making formal verification more challenging. High-quality transpilation often requires navigating this trade-off, possibly through multi-stage processes, hybrid approaches combining rule-based correctness with LLM idiomaticity, or sophisticated idiom mapping that attempts to preserve intent while adopting target conventions. The investment in generating idiomatic code is significant, as it directly impacts the long-term value, maintainability, and ultimate success of the code migration effort.⁹

6. Addressing Key Challenges in Code Translation

Automated code translation faces numerous hurdles stemming from the inherent differences between programming languages, their ecosystems, and their runtime environments. Successfully building a translation tool requires strategies to overcome these challenges.

6.1. Language-Specific Nuances

Each programming language possesses unique features, syntax, and semantics that complicate direct translation:

• Unique Constructs: Features present in the source but absent in the target (or vice-versa) require complex workarounds or emulation. Examples include C's pointers and manual memory management vs. Rust's ownership and borrowing system ¹¹, Java's checked exceptions, Python's dynamic typing and metaprogramming, or Lisp's macros.

• Semantic Subtleties: Even seemingly similar constructs can have different underlying semantics regarding aspects like integer promotion, floating-point precision, short-circuit evaluation, or the order of argument evaluation.⁴³ These must be accurately modeled and translated.

• Standard Library Differences: Core functionalities provided by standard libraries often differ significantly in API design, available features, and behavior (covered further in Section 4.3).

• Preprocessing: Languages like C use preprocessors for macros and conditional compilation. These often need to be expanded before translation or intelligently converted into equivalent target language constructs (e.g., Rust macros, inline functions, or generic types).¹⁵

6.2. Managing Library Dependencies

As detailed in Section 4.3 and 4.4, handling external library dependencies is a major practical challenge.⁵⁴ The process involves accurately identifying all dependencies in the source project, finding functional equivalents in the target language's ecosystem (which may not exist or may have different APIs), resolving version incompatibilities, and updating the project's build configuration (e.g., migrating build scripts between systems like Maven and Gradle ⁶⁷). The sheer volume of dependencies in modern software significantly increases the complexity and risk associated with migration.⁵⁵ Failure to manage dependencies correctly can lead to build failures, runtime errors, or subtle behavioral changes, requiring robust strategies like audits, automated tooling, and careful planning throughout the migration lifecycle.⁵⁵

6.3. Runtime Environment Disparities

Code execution is heavily influenced by the underlying runtime environment, and differences between source and target environments must be addressed:

• Operating System Interaction: Code relying on OS-specific APIs (e.g., for file system access, process management, networking) needs platform-agnostic equivalents or conditional logic in the target. Modern applications often need to be "container-friendly," relying on environment variables for configuration and exhibiting stateless behavior where possible, simplifying deployment across different OS environments.⁷¹

• Threading and Concurrency Models: Languages and platforms offer diverse approaches to concurrency, including OS-level threads (platform threads), user-level threads (green threads), asynchronous programming models (async/await), and newer paradigms like Java's virtual threads.⁸⁵ Translating concurrent code requires mapping concepts like thread creation, synchronization primitives (mutexes, semaphores, condition variables ⁸⁶), and memory models. Differences in scheduling (preemptive vs. cooperative ⁸⁶), performance characteristics, and limitations (like Python's Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) hindering CPU-bound parallelism ⁸⁷) mean that a simple 1:1 mapping of threading APIs is often insufficient. Architectural changes may be needed to achieve correct and performant concurrent behavior in the target environment. For instance, a thread-per-request model common with OS threads might need translation to an async or virtual thread model for better scalability.⁸⁵

• File I/O: File system interactions can differ in path conventions, buffering mechanisms, character encoding handling (e.g., CCSID conversion between EBCDIC and ASCII ⁹⁰), and support for synchronous versus asynchronous operations.⁸⁸ Performance for large file I/O depends heavily on buffering strategies and avoiding excessive disk seeks, which might require different approaches in the target language.⁹¹ Java's traditional blocking I/O contrasts with its NIO (non-blocking I/O) and the behavior of virtual threads during I/O.⁸⁸

• Execution Environment: Differences between interpreted environments (like standard Python), managed runtimes with virtual machines (like JVM ³⁸ or.NET CLR), and direct native compilation affect performance, memory management, and available runtime services.

These runtime disparities often necessitate more than local code changes; they may require architectural refactoring to adapt the application's structure to the target environment's capabilities and constraints, particularly for I/O and concurrency.

6.4. Handling Unsafe or Low-Level Constructs

Translating code from languages like C or C++, which allow low-level memory manipulation and potentially unsafe operations, into memory-safe languages like Rust presents a particularly acute challenge.⁹ C permits direct pointer arithmetic, manual memory allocation/deallocation, and unchecked type casts ("transmutation").¹¹ These operations are inherently unsafe and are precisely what languages like Rust aim to prevent or strictly control through mechanisms like ownership, borrowing, and lifetimes.⁹

Strategies for handling this mismatch, particularly for C-to-Rust translation, include:

• Translate to unsafe Rust: Tools like C2Rust perform a largely direct translation, wrapping C idioms that violate Rust's safety rules within unsafe blocks.⁹ This preserves the original C semantics and ensures functional equivalence but sacrifices Rust's memory safety guarantees and often results in highly unidiomatic code that is difficult to maintain.⁹

• Translate to Safe Rust: This is the ideal goal but is significantly harder. It requires sophisticated static analysis to understand pointer usage, aliasing, and memory management in the C code.¹¹ Techniques involve inferring ownership and lifetimes, replacing raw pointers with safer Rust abstractions like slices, references (&, &mut), and smart pointers (Box, Rc, Arc) ¹¹, and potentially restructuring code to comply with Rust's borrow checker.¹¹ This may involve inserting runtime checks or making strategic data copies to satisfy the borrow checker.¹¹

• Hybrid Approaches: Recognizing the limitations of pure rule-based or LLM approaches, recent research focuses on combining techniques:

  • C2Rust + LLM: Systems like C2SaferRust ⁹ and SACTOR ⁷⁸ first use C2Rust (or a similar rule-based step) to get a functionally correct but unsafe Rust baseline. They then decompose this code and use LLMs, often guided by static analysis or testing feedback, to iteratively refine segments of the unsafe code into safer, more idiomatic Rust.

  • LLM + Dynamic Analysis: Syzygy ⁹⁹ uses dynamic analysis on the C code execution to extract semantic information (e.g., actual array sizes, pointer aliasing behavior, inferred types) which is then fed to an LLM to guide the translation towards safe Rust.

  • LLM + Formal Methods: Tools like VERT ⁷⁷ use LLMs to generate readable Rust code but employ formal verification techniques (like PBT or model checking) against a trusted (though unreadable) rule-based translation to ensure correctness.

• Targeting Subsets: Some approaches focus on translating only a well-defined, safer subset of C, avoiding the most problematic low-level features to make translation to safe Rust more feasible.¹¹

The translation of low-level, potentially unsafe code remains a significant research frontier. The difficulty in automatically bridging the gap between C's permissiveness and Rust's strictness while achieving safety, correctness, and idiomaticity is driving innovation towards these complex, multi-stage, hybrid systems that integrate analysis, generation, and verification.

7. Leveraging Modern Approaches: LLMs and Advanced Techniques

Recent years have seen the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) and other advanced techniques being applied to the challenge of code translation, offering new possibilities but also presenting unique limitations. Hybrid systems combining these modern approaches with traditional compiler techniques currently represent the state-of-the-art.

7.1. Role of Large Language Models (LLMs)

LLMs, trained on vast datasets of code and natural language, have demonstrated potential in code translation tasks.¹³

• Potential:

  • Idiomatic Code Generation: LLMs often produce code that is more natural, readable, and idiomatic compared to rule-based systems, as they learn common patterns and styles from human-written code in their training data.⁷

  • Handling Ambiguity: They can sometimes infer intent and handle complex or poorly documented source code better than rigid rule-based systems.⁴⁶

  • Related Tasks: Can assist with adjacent tasks like code summarization or comment generation during translation.¹³

• Limitations:

  • Correctness Issues: LLMs are probabilistic models and frequently generate code with subtle or overt semantic errors (hallucinations), failing to preserve the original program's logic.⁹ They lack formal correctness guarantees. Failures often stem from a lack of deep semantic understanding or misinterpreting language nuances.¹³

  • Scalability and Context Limits: LLMs struggle with translating large codebases due to limitations in their context window size (the amount of text they can process at once) and potential performance degradation with larger inputs.⁹

  • Consistency and Reliability: Translation quality can vary significantly between different LLMs and even between different runs of the same model.¹³

  • Prompt Dependency: Performance heavily depends on the quality and detail of the input prompt, often requiring careful prompt engineering.¹³

Evaluating LLM translation capabilities requires specialized benchmarks like Code Lingua, TransCoder, and CRUXEval, going beyond simple syntactic similarity metrics.¹³ While promising, LLMs are generally not yet reliable enough for fully automated, high-assurance code translation on their own.¹³

7.2. Enhancement Strategies for LLM-based Translation

To mitigate LLM limitations and harness their strengths, various enhancement strategies have been developed:

• Intermediate Representation (IR) Augmentation: Providing the LLM with both the source code and its corresponding compiler IR (e.g., LLVM IR) during training or prompting.⁷ The IR provides a more direct semantic representation, helping the LLM align different languages and better understand the code's logic, significantly improving translation accuracy.⁸

• Test Case Augmentation / Feedback-Guided Repair: Using executable test cases to validate LLM output and provide feedback for iterative refinement.⁹ Frameworks like UniTrans automatically generate test cases, execute the translated code, and prompt the LLM to fix errors based on failing tests.¹³ This requires a test suite for the source code. Some feedback strategies might need careful tuning to be effective.¹⁰³

• Divide and Conquer / Decomposition: Breaking down large codebases into smaller, semantically coherent units (functions, code slices) that fit within the LLM's context window.⁹ These units are translated individually and then reassembled, requiring careful management of inter-unit dependencies and context.

• Prompt Engineering: Designing effective prompts that provide sufficient context, clear instructions, examples (few-shot learning ⁷⁷), constraints, and specify the desired output format.¹³

• Static Analysis Feedback: Integrating static analysis tools (linters, type checkers like rustc ⁷⁷) into the loop. Compiler errors or analysis warnings from the generated code are fed back to the LLM to guide repair attempts.⁷⁷

• Dynamic Analysis Guidance: Using runtime information gathered by executing the source code (e.g., concrete data types, array sizes, pointer aliasing information) to provide richer semantic context to the LLM during translation, as done in the Syzygy tool.⁹⁹

7.3. Hybrid Systems

The most advanced and promising approaches today often involve hybrid systems that combine the strengths of traditional rule-based/compiler techniques with the generative capabilities of LLMs, often incorporating verification or testing mechanisms.

• Rationale: Rule-based systems excel at structural correctness and preserving semantics but produce unidiomatic code. LLMs excel at idiomaticity but lack correctness guarantees. Hybrid systems aim to get the best of both worlds.

• Examples:

  • C2Rust + LLM (e.g., C2SaferRust, SACTOR): These tools use the rule-based C2Rust transpiler for an initial, functionally correct C-to-unsafe-Rust translation. This unsafe code then serves as a semantically grounded starting point. The code is decomposed, and LLMs are used to translate individual unsafe segments into safer, more idiomatic Rust, guided by context and often validated by tests or static analysis feedback.⁹ This approach demonstrably reduces the amount of unsafe code and improves idiomaticity while maintaining functional correctness verified by testing.

  • LLM + Formal Methods (e.g., LLMLift, VERT): These systems integrate formal verification to provide correctness guarantees for LLM-generated code.

    • LLMLift ⁵⁶ targets DSLs. It uses an LLM to translate source code into a verifiable IR (Python functions representing DSL operators) and generate necessary loop invariants. An SMT solver formally proves the equivalence between the source and the IR representation before final target code is generated.

    • VERT ⁷⁷ uses a standard WebAssembly compiler + WASM-to-Rust tool (rWasm) as a rule-based transpiler to create an unreadable but functionally correct "oracle" Rust program. In parallel, it uses an LLM to generate a readable candidate Rust program. VERT then employs formal methods (Property-Based Testing or Bounded Model Checking) to verify the equivalence of the LLM candidate against the oracle. If verification fails, it enters an iterative repair loop using compiler feedback and re-prompting until equivalence is achieved. VERT significantly boosts the rate of functionally correct translations compared to using the LLM alone.

  • LLM + Dynamic Analysis (e.g., Syzygy): This approach ⁹⁹ enhances LLM translation by providing runtime semantic information gleaned from dynamic analysis of the source C code's execution (e.g., concrete types, array bounds, aliasing). It translates code incrementally, using the LLM to generate both the Rust code and corresponding equivalence tests (leveraging mined I/O examples from dynamic analysis), validating each step before proceeding.

These hybrid approaches demonstrate a clear trend: leveraging LLMs not as standalone translators, but as powerful pattern matchers and generators within a structured framework that incorporates semantic grounding (via IRs, analysis, or rule-based translation) and rigorous validation (via testing or formal methods). This synergy is key to overcoming the limitations of individual techniques.

7.4. Overview of Existing Tools and Frameworks

The landscape of code translation tools is diverse, ranging from mature rule-based systems to cutting-edge research prototypes utilizing LLMs and formal methods.

Comparative Overview of Selected Code Translation Tools/Frameworks

Tool/Framework	Approach	Source Language(s)	Target Language(s)	Key Features/Techniques	Strengths	Limitations	Relevant Snippets
C2Rust	Rule-based	C	Rust	Transpilation, Focus on functional equivalence	Handles complex C code, Preserves semantics	Generates non-idiomatic, unsafe Rust	3
TransCoder	NMT	Java, C++, Python	Java, C++, Python	Pre-training on monolingual corpora, Back-translation	Can generate idiomatic code	Accuracy issues, Semantic errors possible	13
TransCoder-IR	NMT + IR	C++, Java, Rust, Go	C++, Java, Rust, Go	Augments NMT with LLVM IR	Improved semantic understanding & accuracy vs. TransCoder	Still probabilistic, Requires IR generation	7
Babel	Rule-based	Modern JavaScript (ES6+)	Older JavaScript (ES5)	AST transformation	Widely used, Ecosystem support	JS-to-JS only	3
TypeScript	Rule-based	TypeScript	JavaScript	Static typing for JS	Strong typing benefits, Large community	TS-to-JS only	3
Emscripten	Rule-based (Compiler Backend)	LLVM Bitcode (from C/C++)	JavaScript, WebAssembly	Compiles C/C++ to run in browsers	Enables web deployment of native code	Complex setup, Performance overhead	3
GopherJS	Rule-based	Go	JavaScript	Allows Go code in browsers	Go language benefits on frontend	Performance considerations	108
UniTrans	LLM Framework	Python, Java, C++	Python, Java, C++	Test case generation, Execution-based validation, Iterative repair	Improves LLM accuracy significantly	Requires executable test cases	13
C2SaferRust	Hybrid (Rule-based + LLM + Testing)	C	Rust	C2Rust initial pass, LLM for unsafe-to-safe refinement, Test validation	Reduces unsafe code, Improves idiomaticity, Verified correctness (via tests)	Relies on C2Rust baseline, LLM limitations	9
LLMLift	Hybrid (LLM + Formal Methods)	General (via Python IR)	DSLs	LLM generates Python IR & invariants, SMT solver verifies equivalence	Formally verified DSL lifting, Less manual effort for DSLs	Focused on DSLs, Relies on LLM for invariant generation	56
VERT	Hybrid (Rule-based + LLM + Formal Methods)	General (via WASM)	Rust	WASM oracle, LLM candidate generation, PBT/BMC verification, Iterative repair	Formally verified equivalence, Readable output, General source languages	Requires WASM compiler, Verification can be slow	77
Syzygy	Hybrid (LLM + Dynamic Analysis + Testing)	C	Rust	Dynamic analysis for semantic context, Paired code/test generation, Incremental translation	Handles complex C constructs using runtime info, Test-validated safe Rust	Requires running source code, Complexity	99

(Note: This table provides a representative sample; numerous other transpilers exist for various language pairs ³)

The development of effective translation tools often involves leveraging general-purpose compiler components like AST manipulation libraries ²⁰, parser generators ²⁹, and program transformation systems.⁶⁵

8. Testing and Validation Strategies

Ensuring the correctness of automatically translated code is paramount but exceptionally challenging. The goal is to achieve semantic equivalence: the translated program must produce the same outputs and exhibit the same behavior as the original program for all possible valid inputs.³⁴ However, proving absolute semantic equivalence is formally undecidable for non-trivial programs.³⁴ Therefore, practical validation strategies focus on achieving high confidence in the translation's correctness using a variety of techniques.

8.1. The Semantic Equivalence Challenge

Simply checking for syntactic similarity (e.g., using metrics like BLEU score borrowed from natural language processing) is inadequate, as syntactically different programs can be semantically equivalent, and vice-versa.¹⁴ Validation must focus on functional behavior.

8.2. Validation Techniques

Several techniques are employed, often in combination, to validate transpiled code:

• Test Case Execution: This is a widely used approach where the source and translated programs are executed against a common test suite, and their outputs are compared.¹³

  • Process: Often leverages the existing test suite of the source project.⁹⁵ Requires setting up a test harness capable of running tests and comparing results across different language environments.

  • Metrics: A common metric is Computational Accuracy (CA), the percentage of test cases for which the translated code produces the correct output.¹³

  • Limitations: The effectiveness is entirely dependent on the quality, coverage, and representativeness of the test suite.¹⁴ It might miss subtle semantic errors or edge-case behaviors not covered by the tests.

  • Automation: Test cases can sometimes be automatically generated using techniques like fuzzing ¹⁰³, search-based software testing ¹⁰⁷, or mined from execution traces (as in Syzygy ⁹⁹). LLMs can also assist in translating existing test cases alongside the source code.⁹⁹

• Static Analysis: Analyzing the code without executing it can identify certain classes of errors or inconsistencies.³¹

  • Techniques: Comparing ASTs or IRs, performing data flow or control flow analysis, type checking, using linters or specialized analysis tools.

  • Application: Can detect type mismatches, potential null dereferences, or structural deviations. Tools like DiffKemp use static analysis and code normalization to compare versions of C code efficiently, focusing on refactoring scenarios.¹¹² The EISP framework uses LLM-guided static analysis, comparing source and target fragments using semantic mappings and API knowledge, specifically designed to find semantic errors without requiring test cases.¹⁰²

  • Limitations: Generally cannot prove full semantic equivalence alone.

• Property-Based Testing (PBT): Instead of testing specific input-output pairs, PBT verifies that the code adheres to general properties (invariants) for a large number of randomly generated inputs.¹⁰⁷

  • Process: Define properties (e.g., "sorting output is ordered and a permutation of input" ¹¹⁷, "translated code output matches source code output for any input X", "renaming a variable doesn't break equivalence" ¹⁰⁷). Use PBT frameworks (e.g., Hypothesis ¹¹⁷, QuickCheck ¹¹⁸, fast-check ¹¹⁹) to generate diverse inputs and check the properties.

  • Advantages: Excellent at finding edge cases and unexpected interactions missed by example-based tests.¹¹⁷ Forces clearer specification of expected behavior. Can be automated and integrated into CI pipelines.¹¹⁹

  • Application: VERT uses PBT (and model checking) to verify equivalence between LLM-generated code and a rule-based oracle.⁷⁷ NOMOS uses PBT for testing properties of translation models themselves.¹⁰⁷

• Formal Verification / Equivalence Checking: Employs rigorous mathematical techniques to formally prove that the translated code is semantically equivalent to the source (or that a transformation step preserves semantics).⁵⁶

  • Techniques: Symbolic execution ⁷⁸, model checking (bounded or unbounded) ⁷⁷, abstract interpretation ⁹⁵, theorem proving using SMT solvers ⁵⁶, bisimulation.¹¹⁶

  • Advantages: Provides the highest level of assurance regarding correctness.¹²³

  • Challenges: Often computationally expensive and faces scalability limitations, typically applied to smaller code units or specific transformations rather than entire large codebases.¹¹¹ Requires formal specifications or reference models, which can be complex to create and maintain.¹¹³ Can be difficult to apply in agile development environments with frequent changes.¹²⁴

  • Application: Used in Translation Validation to verify individual compiler optimization passes.¹¹³ Integrated into hybrid tools like LLMLift (using SMT solvers ⁵⁶) and VERT (using model checking ⁷⁷) to verify LLM outputs.

• Mutation Analysis: Assesses the quality of the translation process or test suite by introducing small, artificial faults (mutations) into the source code and checking if these semantic changes are correctly reflected (or detected by tests) in the translated code.¹⁴ The MBTA framework specifically proposes this for evaluating code translators.¹⁴

Given the limitations of each individual technique, achieving high confidence in the correctness of complex code translations typically requires a combination of strategies. For example, using execution testing for broad functional coverage, PBT to probe edge cases and properties, static analysis to catch specific error types, and potentially formal methods for the most critical components.

Furthermore, integrating validation within the translation process itself, rather than solely as a post-processing step, is proving beneficial, especially when using less reliable generative methods like LLMs. Approaches involving iterative repair based on feedback from testing ¹³, static analysis ⁷⁷, or formal verification ⁷⁷, as well as generating tests alongside code ⁹⁹, allow for earlier detection and correction of errors, leading to more robust and reliable translation systems. PBT, in particular, offers a practical balance, providing more rigorous testing than example-based approaches without the full complexity and scalability challenges of formal verification, making it well-suited for integration into development workflows.¹¹⁷

9. Conclusion and Future Directions

Building a tool to automatically translate codebases between programming languages is a complex undertaking, requiring expertise spanning compiler design, programming language theory, software engineering, and increasingly, artificial intelligence. The core process involves parsing source code into structured representations like ASTs, performing semantic analysis to understand meaning, leveraging Intermediate Representations (IRs) to bridge language gaps and enable transformations, mapping language constructs and crucially, library APIs, generating syntactically correct and idiomatic target code, and rigorously validating the semantic equivalence of the translation.

Significant challenges persist throughout this pipeline. Accurately capturing and translating subtle semantic differences between languages remains difficult.³⁴ Mapping programming paradigms often requires architectural refactoring, not just local translation.⁵¹ Handling the vast and complex web of library dependencies and API mappings is a major practical hurdle, where semantic understanding of usage context proves more effective than name matching alone.⁵⁴ Generating code that is not only correct but also idiomatic and maintainable in the target language is essential for the migration's success, yet rule-based systems often fall short here.⁹ Runtime environment disparities, especially in concurrency and I/O, can necessitate significant adaptation.⁸⁵ Translating low-level or unsafe code, particularly into memory-safe languages like Rust, represents a major frontier requiring sophisticated analysis and hybrid techniques.⁹ Finally, validating the semantic correctness of translations is inherently hard, demanding multi-faceted strategies beyond simple testing.³⁴

The field has evolved from purely rule-based transpilers towards incorporating statistical methods and, more recently, Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs show promise for generating more idiomatic code, their inherent limitations regarding correctness and semantic understanding necessitate their integration into larger, structured systems.¹³ The most promising current research directions involve hybrid approaches that synergistically combine LLMs with traditional compiler techniques (like IRs ⁸), static and dynamic program analysis ⁷⁸, automated testing (including PBT ⁷⁷), and formal verification methods.⁵⁶ These integrations aim to guide LLM generation, constrain its outputs, and provide robust validation, addressing the weaknesses of relying solely on one technique. Tools like C2SaferRust, VERT, LLMLift, and Syzygy exemplify this trend.⁹

Despite considerable progress, fully automated, correct, and idiomatic translation for arbitrary, large-scale codebases remains an open challenge.¹³ Future research will likely focus on:

• Enhancing the reasoning, semantic understanding, and reliability of LLMs specifically for code.¹³

• Developing more scalable and automated testing and verification techniques tailored to the unique challenges of code translation.¹⁴

• Improving techniques for handling domain-specific languages (DSLs) and specialized library ecosystems.⁵⁶

• Creating better methods for migrating complex software architectures and generating highly idiomatic code automatically.

• Exploring standardization of IRs or translation interfaces to foster interoperability between tools.³⁶

• Deepening the integration between static analysis, dynamic analysis, and generative models.⁹⁹

• Addressing the specific complexities of translating concurrent and parallel programs.³⁴

Ultimately, constructing effective code translation tools demands a multi-disciplinary approach. The optimal strategy for any given project will depend heavily on the specific source and target languages, the size and complexity of the codebase, the availability of test suites, and the required guarantees regarding correctness and idiomaticity. The ongoing fusion of compiler technology, software engineering principles, and AI continues to drive innovation in this critical area.

Works cited

1. What are the pros and cons of transpiling to a high-level language vs compiling to VM bytecode or LLVM IR, accessed April 16, 2025, https://langdev.stackexchange.com/questions/270/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-transpiling-to-a-high-level-language-vs-compiling
2. Introduction of Compiler Design - GeeksforGeeks, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-of-compiler-design/
3. Source-to-source compiler - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-to-source_compiler
4. Compilers Principles, Techniques, and Tools 2/E - UPRA Biblioteca Virtual, accessed April 16, 2025, https://evirtual.upra.ao/examples/biblioteca/content/files/engi_Aho,%20Alfred%20V%20-%20Compilers_%20Principles,%20Techniques%20and%20Tools%20(2013).pdf
5. What is Source-to-Source Compiler - Startup House, accessed April 16, 2025, https://startup-house.com/glossary/what-is-source-to-source-compiler
6. Source-to-Source Translation and Software Engineering - Scientific Research Publishing, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=30425
7. [2207.03578] Code Translation with Compiler Representations - ar5iv - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/2207.03578
8. code translation with compiler representations - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.03578
9. C2SaferRust: Transforming C Projects into Safer Rust with NeuroSymbolic Techniques - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2501.14257v1
10. C2SaferRust: Transforming C Projects into Safer Rust with NeuroSymbolic Techniques - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2501.14257
11. (PDF) Compiling C to Safe Rust, Formalized - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387263750_Compiling_C_to_Safe_Rust_Formalized
12. Compiler, Transpiler and Interpreter - DEV Community, accessed April 16, 2025, https://dev.to/godinhojoao/compiler-transpiler-and-interpreter-2eh8
13. Exploring and Unleashing the Power of Large Language Models in ..., accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382232097_Exploring_and_Unleashing_the_Power_of_Large_Language_Models_in_Automated_Code_Translation
14. Mutation analysis for evaluating code translation - PMC, accessed April 16, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10700200/
15. Compiler - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiler
16. Portability by automatic translation a large-scale case study - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3624361_Portability_by_automatic_translation_a_large-scale_case_study
17. www.cs.cornell.edu, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs4120/2022sp/notes/ir/
18. ASTs Meaning: A Complete Programming Guide - Devzery, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.devzery.com/post/asts-meaning
19. Intermediate Code Generation in Compiler Design | GeeksforGeeks, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/intermediate-code-generation-in-compiler-design/
20. Abstract syntax tree - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_syntax_tree
21. AST versus CST : r/ProgrammingLanguages - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/1biprl6/ast_versus_cst/
22. Syntax Directed Translation in Compiler Design | GeeksforGeeks, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/syntax-directed-translation-in-compiler-design/
23. What is an Abstract Syntax Tree? | Nearform, accessed April 16, 2025, https://nearform.com/insights/what-is-an-abstract-syntax-tree/
24. Intermediate Representations, accessed April 16, 2025, https://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs143/cs143.1128/handouts/230%20Intermediate%20Rep.pdf
25. A library for working with abstract syntax trees. - GitHub, accessed April 16, 2025, https://github.com/buxlabs/abstract-syntax-tree
26. ast — Abstract Syntax Trees — Python 3.13.3 documentation, accessed April 16, 2025, https://docs.python.org/3/library/ast.html
27. Library for programming Abstract Syntax Trees in Python - Stack Overflow, accessed April 16, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1950578/library-for-programming-abstract-syntax-trees-in-python
28. Python library for parsing code of any language into an AST? [closed] - Stack Overflow, accessed April 16, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65076264/python-library-for-parsing-code-of-any-language-into-an-ast
29. How do I go about creating intermediate code from my AST? : r/Compilers - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Compilers/comments/u94mak/how_do_i_go_about_creating_intermediate_code_from/
30. What languages give you access to the AST to modify during compilation?, accessed April 16, 2025, https://langdev.stackexchange.com/questions/2134/what-languages-give-you-access-to-the-ast-to-modify-during-compilation
31. Control-Flow Analysis and Type Systems - DTIC, accessed April 16, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA289338.pdf
32. Compiler Optimization and Code Generation - UCSB, accessed April 16, 2025, https://bears.ece.ucsb.edu/class/ece253/compiler_opt/c2.pdf
33. OOP vs Functional vs Procedural - Scaler Topics, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.scaler.com/topics/java/oop-vs-functional-vs-procedural/
34. BabelTower: Learning to Auto-parallelized Program Translation, accessed April 16, 2025, https://proceedings.mlr.press/v162/wen22b/wen22b.pdf
35. Towards Portable High Performance in Python: Transpilation, High-Level IR, Code Transformations and Compiler Directives, accessed April 16, 2025, https://ipsj.ixsq.nii.ac.jp/ej/?action=repository_action_common_download&item_id=190679&item_no=1&attribute_id=1&file_no=1
36. Intermediate Representation - Communications of the ACM, accessed April 16, 2025, https://cacm.acm.org/practice/intermediate-representation/
37. A Closer Look at Via-IR | Solidity Programming Language, accessed April 16, 2025, https://soliditylang.org/blog/2024/07/12/a-closer-look-at-via-ir/
38. Difference between JIT and JVM in Java - GeeksforGeeks, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-jit-and-jvm-in-java/
39. What would an ideal IR (Intermediate Representation) look like? : r/Compilers - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Compilers/comments/1g0chuu/what_would_an_ideal_ir_intermediate/
40. Good tutorials for source to source compilers? (Or transpilers as they're commonly called I guess) - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Compilers/comments/1k0g2u6/good_tutorials_for_source_to_source_compilers_or/
41. IRCoder: Intermediate Representations Make Language Models Robust Multilingual Code Generators - ACL Anthology, accessed April 16, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.802.pdf
42. Programming Techniques for Big Data - GitHub Pages, accessed April 16, 2025, https://burcuku.github.io/cse2520-bigdata/2021/prog-big-data.html
43. (PDF) Fundamental Constructs in Programming Languages - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353399271_Fundamental_Constructs_in_Programming_Languages
44. 7. Control Description Language - OpenBuildingControl, accessed April 16, 2025, https://obc.lbl.gov/specification/cdl.html
45. Code2Code - Reply, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reply.com/en/artificial-intelligence/code-to-code
46. NoviCode: Generating Programs from Natural Language Utterances by Novices - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2407.10626v1
47. Programming paradigm - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm
48. Programming Paradigms Compared: Functional, Procedural, and Object-Oriented - Atatus, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.atatus.com/blog/programming-paradigms-compared-function-procedural-and-oop/
49. Functional Programming vs Object-Oriented Programming in Data Analysis | DataCamp, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/functional-programming-vs-object-oriented-programming
50. Which programming paradigms do you find most interesting or useful, and which languages do you know that embrace those paradigms in the purest form? : r/ProgrammingLanguages - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/1168u56/which_programming_paradigms_do_you_find_most/
51. Exploring Procedural, Object-Oriented, and Functional Programming with JavaScript, accessed April 16, 2025, https://dev.to/sammychris/exploring-procedural-object-oriented-and-functional-programming-with-javascript-ah2
52. OOP vs Functional Programming vs Procedural [closed] - Stack Overflow, accessed April 16, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/552336/oop-vs-functional-programming-vs-procedural
53. Programming Paradigms, Assembly, Procedural, Functional & OOP | Ep28 - YouTube, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmS2-9KEeS0
54. (PDF) Mapping API elements for code migration with vector ..., accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303296510_Mapping_API_elements_for_code_migration_with_vector_representations
55. Managing Dependencies in Your Codebase: Top Tools and Best Practices, accessed April 16, 2025, https://vslive.com/Blogs/News-and-Tips/2024/03/Managing-Dependencies.aspx
56. proceedings.neurips.cc, accessed April 16, 2025, https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/48bb60a0c0aebb4142bf314bd1a5c6a0-Paper-Conference.pdf
57. 10 Best Data Mapping Tools to Save Time & Effort in 2025 | Airbyte, accessed April 16, 2025, https://airbyte.com/top-etl-tools-for-sources/data-mapping-tools
58. Python mapping libraries (with examples) - Hex, accessed April 16, 2025, https://hex.tech/templates/data-visualization/python-mapping-libraries/
59. 10 Best Web Mapping Libraries for Developers to Enhance User Experience, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.maplibrary.org/1107/best-web-mapping-libraries-for-developers/
60. Map API stages to a custom domain name for HTTP APIs - Amazon API Gateway, accessed April 16, 2025, https://docs.aws.amazon.com/apigateway/latest/developerguide/http-api-mappings.html
61. A Beginner Guide to Conversions APIs - Lifesight, accessed April 16, 2025, https://lifesight.io/blog/guide-to-conversions-api/
62. Create Conversion Actions - Ads API - Google for Developers, accessed April 16, 2025, https://developers.google.com/google-ads/api/docs/conversions/create-conversion-actions
63. Facebook Conversions API (Actions) | Segment Documentation, accessed April 16, 2025, https://segment.com/docs/connections/destinations/catalog/actions-facebook-conversions-api/
64. Conversion management | Google Ads API - Google for Developers, accessed April 16, 2025, https://developers.google.com/google-ads/api/docs/conversions/overview
65. What tools for migrating programs from a platform A to B - Stack Overflow, accessed April 16, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1081931/what-tools-for-migrating-programs-from-a-platform-a-to-b
66. How to manage deprecated libraries | LabEx, accessed April 16, 2025, https://labex.io/tutorials/c-how-to-manage-deprecated-libraries-418491
67. Automating code migrations with speed and accuracy - Gitar's AI, accessed April 16, 2025, https://gitar.ai/blog/automating-code-migrations-with-speed-and-accuracy
68. What is Dependency in Application Migration? - Hopp Tech, accessed April 16, 2025, https://hopp.tech/resources/data-migration-blog/migration-dependency/
69. Best Practices for Managing Frontend Dependencies - PixelFreeStudio Blog, accessed April 16, 2025, https://blog.pixelfreestudio.com/best-practices-for-managing-frontend-dependencies/
70. Strategies for keeping your packages and dependencies updated | ButterCMS, accessed April 16, 2025, https://buttercms.com/blog/strategies-for-keeping-your-packages-and-dependencies-updated/
71. Modernization: Developing your code migration strategy - Red Hat, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/modernization-developing-your-code-migration-strategy
72. Q&A: On Managing External Dependencies - Embedded Artistry, accessed April 16, 2025, https://embeddedartistry.com/blog/2020/06/22/qa-on-managing-external-dependencies/
73. Steps for Migrating Code Between Version Control Tools - DevOps.com, accessed April 16, 2025, https://devops.com/steps-for-migrating-code-between-version-control-tools/
74. A complete-ish guide to dependency management in Python - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Python/comments/1gphzn2/a_completeish_guide_to_dependency_management_in/
75. Using Code Idioms to Define Idiomatic Migrations - Strumenta, accessed April 16, 2025, https://tomassetti.me/code-idioms-to-define-idiomatic-migrations/
76. How to create a source-to-source compiler/transpiler similar to CoffeeScript? - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/1hua3s7/how_to_create_a_sourcetosource_compilertranspiler/
77. VERT: Verified Equivalent Rust Transpilation with Large Language Models as Few-Shot Learners - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2404.18852v2
78. LLM-Driven Multi-step Translation from C to Rust using Static Analysis - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2503.12511v2
79. Let's write a compiler, part 1: Introduction, selecting a language, and planning | Hacker News, accessed April 16, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28183062
80. Exploring and Unleashing the Power of Large Language Models in Automated Code Translation - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2404.14646
81. AST Transpiler that converts Typescript into different languages (PHP, Python, C# (wip)) - GitHub, accessed April 16, 2025, https://github.com/carlosmiei/ast-transpiler
82. Translating C To Rust: Lessons from a User Study - Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) Symposium, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1407-paper.pdf
83. [Revue de papier] Towards a Transpiler for C/C++ to Safer Rust - Moonlight, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.themoonlight.io/fr/review/towards-a-transpiler-for-cc-to-safer-rust
84. Context-aware Code Segmentation for C-to-Rust Translation using Large Language Models, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2409.10506v1
85. Virtual Threads - Oracle Help Center, accessed April 16, 2025, https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/core/virtual-threads.html
86. Thread (computing) - Wikipedia, accessed April 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)
87. Threading vs Multiprocessing - Advanced Python 15, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.python-engineer.com/courses/advancedpython/15-thread-vs-process/
88. Exploring the design of Java's new virtual threads - Oracle Blogs, accessed April 16, 2025, https://blogs.oracle.com/javamagazine/post/java-virtual-threads
89. why each thread run time is different - python - Stack Overflow, accessed April 16, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/72837601/why-each-thread-run-time-is-different
90. f_control_cvt - IBM, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/docs/pt/SSLTBW_2.4.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r4.bpxb600/fcvt.htm
91. multithreading - Design of file I/O -> processing -> file I/O system, accessed April 16, 2025, https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/385856/design-of-file-i-o-processing-file-i-o-system
92. Efficient File I/O and Conversion of Strings to Floats - Stack Overflow, accessed April 16, 2025, https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2066890/efficient-file-i-o-and-conversion-of-strings-to-floats
93. Compiling C to Safe Rust, Formalized - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.15042
94. (PDF) C2SaferRust: Transforming C Projects into Safer Rust with NeuroSymbolic Techniques - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388402232_C2SaferRust_Transforming_C_Projects_into_Safer_Rust_with_NeuroSymbolic_Techniques
95. [PDF] Ownership guided C to Rust translation - Semantic Scholar, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/34d32432225c5095c2fcee926b90cd3bf2a7d425
96. [Literature Review] Towards a Transpiler for C/C++ to Safer Rust - Moonlight, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/towards-a-transpiler-for-cc-to-safer-rust
97. [2501.14257] C2SaferRust: Transforming C Projects into Safer Rust with NeuroSymbolic Techniques - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.14257
98. [2503.12511] LLM-Driven Multi-step Translation from C to Rust using Static Analysis - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.12511
99. Syzygy: Dual Code-Test C to (safe) Rust Translation using LLMs and Dynamic Analysis - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.14234
100. (PDF) Syzygy: Dual Code-Test C to (safe) Rust Translation using LLMs and Dynamic Analysis - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/387263703_Syzygy_Dual_Code-Test_C_to_safe_Rust_Translation_using_LLMs_and_Dynamic_Analysis
101. [2404.18852] VERT: Verified Equivalent Rust Transpilation with Large Language Models as Few-Shot Learners - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18852
102. A test-free semantic mistakes localization framework in Neural Code Translation - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.22818v1
103. Towards Translating Real-World Code with LLMs: A Study of Translating to Rust - arXiv, accessed April 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2405.11514v2
104. iSEngLab/AwesomeLLM4SE: A Survey on Large Language Models for Software Engineering - GitHub, accessed April 16, 2025, https://github.com/iSEngLab/AwesomeLLM4SE
105. codefuse-ai/Awesome-Code-LLM: [TMLR] A curated list of language modeling researches for code (and other software engineering activities), plus related datasets. - GitHub, accessed April 16, 2025, https://github.com/codefuse-ai/Awesome-Code-LLM
106. VERT: Verified Rust Transpilation with Few-Shot Learning - GoatStack.AI, accessed April 16, 2025, https://goatstack.ai/topics/vert-verified-rust-transpilation-with-few-shot-learning-zlxegs
107. Automatically Testing Functional Properties of Code Translation Models - Maria Christakis, accessed April 16, 2025, https://mariachris.github.io/Pubs/AAAI-2024.pdf
108. A curated list of awesome transpilers. aka source-to-source compilers - GitHub, accessed April 16, 2025, https://github.com/milahu/awesome-transpilers
109. List of all available transpilers: : r/ProgrammingLanguages - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammingLanguages/comments/121xhmg/list_of_all_available_transpilers/
110. Transpiler.And.Similar.List - GitHub Pages, accessed April 16, 2025, https://aterik.github.io/Transpiler.and.similar.List/List/
111. Automatic validation of code-improving transformations on low-level program representations | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220130963_Automatic_validation_of_code-improving_transformations_on_low-level_program_representations
112. Automatically Checking Semantic Equivalence between Versions of Large-Scale C Projects, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.fit.vut.cz/person/vojnar/public/Publications/mv-icst21-diffkemp.pdf
113. Translation Validation for an Optimizing Compiler - People @EECS, accessed April 16, 2025, https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~necula/Papers/tv_pldi00.pdf
114. Automatically Testing Functional Properties of Code Translation Models - AAAI Publications, accessed April 16, 2025, https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/30097/31934
115. Service-based Modernization of Java Applications - IFI UZH, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.ifi.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:00000000-5405-68e5-ffff-ffffc9a7df83/GiacomoGhezzi_msthesis.pdf
116. Automatically Checking Semantic Equivalence between Versions of Large-Scale C Projects | Request PDF - ResearchGate, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351837273_Automatically_Checking_Semantic_Equivalence_between_Versions_of_Large-Scale_C_Projects
117. How to Use Property-Based Testing as Fuzzy Unit Testing - InfoQ, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.infoq.com/news/2024/12/fuzzy-unit-testing/
118. Randomized Property-Based Testing and Fuzzing - PLUM @ UMD, accessed April 16, 2025, https://plum-umd.github.io/projects/random-testing.html
119. Property Based Testing with Jest - fast-check, accessed April 16, 2025, https://fast-check.dev/docs/tutorials/setting-up-your-test-environment/property-based-testing-with-jest/
120. Using Lightweight Formal Methods to Validate a Key-Value Storage Node in Amazon S3, accessed April 16, 2025, https://bkragl.github.io/papers/sosp2021.pdf
121. dubzzz/fast-check: Property based testing framework for JavaScript (like QuickCheck) written in TypeScript - GitHub, accessed April 16, 2025, https://github.com/dubzzz/fast-check
122. do you prefer formal proof(like in Coq for instance) or property based testing? - Reddit, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/8he2oq/do_you_prefer_formal_prooflike_in_coq_for/
123. Formal Verification of Code Conversion: A Comprehensive Survey - MDPI, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7080/12/12/244
124. Formal verification of software, as the article acknowledges, relies heavily on - Hacker News, accessed April 16, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42656639
125. Formal Methods: Just Good Engineering Practice? (2024) - Hacker News, accessed April 16, 2025, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42656433
126. Transpilers: A Systematic Mapping Review of Their Usage in Research and Industry - MDPI, accessed April 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/6/3667

MetaFork: A Compilation Framework for Concurrency Models Targeting Hardware Accelerators - Scholarship@Western, accessed April 16, 2025, https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5935&context=etd