Warp wrote:
>   Why is C not considered a "high level language" anylonger, given that
> once it was?

I think it was only "high level" compared to assembler. FORTRAN was also a 
"high level" language, for example.

>   This is a rather concrete definition of "high level language". However,
> at some point a much fuzzier definition was introduced, and this new
> definition excluded C. What exactly *is* the precise new definition?
> I have no idea. Why was it necessary to be introduced? I have no idea.


I don't think there is a precise definition. The term got fuzzy when there 
came more than one criterion for "high-level" ness. You have languages that 
are more or less portable, languages that are more or less powerful, 
languages that are more or less safe, languages that are more or less 
strict, etc.  C used to be one of the highest level languages, but 40 years 
later we have other languages that are much more abstract and powerful while 
still having the same portability that C does, so C is no longer a "high 
level" language.

It's like saying "A five-story building in Napoleon's day was a tall 
building. Now it's not tall any more. What happened to the definition?"

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message