Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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?"

  How about instead of having just the false dichotomy of "low-level" and
"high-level" languages, there could be more options. Perhaps C could be
a "middle-level" language (because it's higher-level than asm but lower-level
than eg. Lisp).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message