 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
