|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New <dne### [at] san rr com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |