 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Are you bored? Fancy a laugh? Read this:
http://www.datarecoverylabs.com/ultimate-computer-language-guide.html
Or rather, read this if you enjoy reading hilariously inaccurate
nonsense being passed off as definitive fact.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/11/2010 12:54 PM, Invisible wrote:
> Or rather, read this if you enjoy reading hilariously inaccurate
> nonsense being passed off as definitive fact.
Thinking about it, I could have just said "go look up Intelligent
Design"... :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Are you bored? Fancy a laugh? Read this:
>
> http://www.datarecoverylabs.com/ultimate-computer-language-guide.html
>
> Or rather, read this if you enjoy reading hilariously inaccurate
> nonsense being passed off as definitive fact.
"Haskell is a scripting language inspired by Python."
LOL
the rest is quite accurate. Or might I say, *was*. Because once upon a time C
indeed was high level and javascript was interpreted...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/11/2010 03:33 PM, nemesis wrote:
> "Haskell is a scripting language inspired by Python."
>
> LOL
Yes. There's not a lot else you can really say to that.
> the rest is quite accurate. Or might I say, *was*. Because once upon a time C
> indeed was high level and javascript was interpreted...
Um...
"Bash is a type of Shell Script. Shell scripting languages are mostly
intended for automating system tasks, as opposed to offering truly
dynamic programming abilities."
"Forth is a Stack Computing Language. Basically the language represents
two virtual stacks to accomplish algorithms."
"Java is one of the first truly object oriented languages."
"PHP is a hypertext preprocessor."
"Perl is a command line language similar to C, and Shell Script."
"Ruby is a multi-paradigm language with syntax similar to Perl. It is
often compared to Java in as much as both languages borrow
object-oriented syntax pioneered by small talk."
"Tcl, like Perl, and other scripting languages, is an interpreted
scripting language designed mostly for console use. It is extensible
through high level languages like Java."
...still think it's accurate? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> the rest is quite accurate. Or might I say, *was*. Because once upon a time C
> indeed was high level and javascript was interpreted...
Why is C not considered a "high level language" anylonger, given that
once it was?
AFAIK originally the idea with a "high level language" was a language which
abstracts away the machine code completely, allowing the same program to be
compiled for completely different and unrelated processor architectures. This
in contrast with assembly, which is a 1-to-1 correspondence between machine
code instructions and keywords, making the language completely tied to the
specific processor architecture and hence non-portable.
Consider, for example, the x86, PowerPC, ARM, UltraSparc and DEC Alpha
processors. They are completely different architectures, and completely
incompatible with each other. The same machine code, or even the same
assembly program, which works in one of them will not work in the others.
However, the exact same C program can be compiled to all of them without
modification, and it will work in the same way in all of them. That's what
makes it "high level": It abstracts away the processor architecture.
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escreveu:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> the rest is quite accurate. Or might I say, *was*. Because once upon a time C
>> indeed was high level and javascript was interpreted...
>
> Why is C not considered a "high level language" anylonger, given that
> once it was?
I'm tempted to say because there are now much higher level languages
than C, whose implementations indeed use it mostly as portable assembly.
But then I remember Lisp was there when Dennis Ritchie was still a kid,
so C was actually never a high level language to begin with, and the
fact that it was created most specifically to allow to port Unix to
other platforms should be a good clue of its original intent...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> On 05/11/2010 03:33 PM, nemesis wrote:
> "Bash is a type of Shell Script. Shell scripting languages are mostly
> intended for automating system tasks, as opposed to offering truly
> dynamic programming abilities."
that's ok.
> "Forth is a Stack Computing Language. Basically the language represents
> two virtual stacks to accomplish algorithms."
that is quite about it, too.
> "Java is one of the first truly object oriented languages."
that is lame.
> "PHP is a hypertext preprocessor."
that is true. They could add that it is really a severely limited Perl
with an annoying preprocessor builtin.
> "Perl is a command line language similar to C, and Shell Script."
that is quite bad. Perl is more like a portable Unix shell, sed, awk
and grep and all included...
> "Ruby is a multi-paradigm language with syntax similar to Perl. It is
> often compared to Java in as much as both languages borrow
> object-oriented syntax pioneered by small talk."
that is quite lame too. Ruby's main influences are indeed Smalltalk and
Perl, with a few influences from Scheme Lisp...
> "Tcl, like Perl, and other scripting languages, is an interpreted
> scripting language designed mostly for console use. It is extensible
> through high level languages like Java."
jesus!
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> "Bash is a type of Shell Script. Shell scripting languages are mostly
>> intended for automating system tasks, as opposed to offering truly
>> dynamic programming abilities."
>
> that's ok.
Once we decide what the nebulous "truly dynamic programming abilities"
is even supposed to *mean*.
>> "Forth is a Stack Computing Language. Basically the language
>> represents two virtual stacks to accomplish algorithms."
>
> that is quite about it, too.
The program "represents two stacks" in order to "accomplish algorithms"?
> jesus!
The prosecution rests.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/11/2010 03:59 PM, Warp wrote:
> Why is C not considered a "high level language" anylonger, given that
> once it was?
>
> AFAIK originally the idea with a "high level language" was a language which
> abstracts away the machine code completely, allowing the same program to be
> compiled for completely different and unrelated processor architectures.
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.
Today I can write programs in languages that are so high-level that they
sometimes don't even look like they should be executable. They almost
look like pseudo-code.
I guess that's the difference.
(And no, you can't objectively measure such a thing.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
