On 05/11/2010 05:18 PM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> As I understand it, originally almost /everything/ was written in
>> machine code, by hand. Compared to that, C is a very, very high-level
>> language.
>
>    Well, C was invented in 1972, while LISP was invented in 1958, and the
> latter is considered a very high-level language even today.

Yeah. Maybe it's just because Lisp's abstractions are further removed 
from the hardware.

Oh, wait. Lisp Machines.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 05:18 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
> >> As I understand it, originally almost /everything/ was written in
> >> machine code, by hand. Compared to that, C is a very, very high-level
> >> language.
> >
> >    Well, C was invented in 1972, while LISP was invented in 1958, and the
> > latter is considered a very high-level language even today.
>
> Yeah. Maybe it's just because Lisp's abstractions are further removed
> from the hardware.
>
> Oh, wait. Lisp Machines.

only a reality in the early 80's...

Post a reply to this message

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

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

On 06/11/2010 01:21 PM, Warp wrote:

>    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).

I think most people today accept that there are highER and lowER levels 
of programming languages. Machine code is obviously the lowest level of 
all; authorities disagree about the exact ordering of the remaining 
languages.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 06/11/2010 01:21 PM, Warp wrote:

> >    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).

> I think most people today accept that there are highER and lowER levels 
> of programming languages. Machine code is obviously the lowest level of 
> all; authorities disagree about the exact ordering of the remaining 
> languages.

  Could there be, in some cases, some ego-boosting involved, of the kind
"my language is higher-level than yours"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Could there be, in some cases, some ego-boosting involved, of the kind
> "my language is higher-level than yours"?

I would certainly think so. While there are clearly a number of axes along 
which "high level" (or "powerful") can be measured, the relative importance 
is difficult to order.  Some people may find performance more important than 
safety, and vice versa, for an obvious example. Others may find ease of 
coding more valuable than assurance of correctness (leading to people 
complaining about "bondage and discipline languages").

I was thinking about this lately, but I haven't had time to write up a whole 
message. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> writes:

>   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

Because computers live in a binary world.

Post a reply to this message