3 ms·
Go is far lower level than Python, which makes the term "low level" fine. Its like calling some color swatch "black" then arguing "that's not black _enough_ to
by 010a 10y ago
Go is far lower level than Python, which makes the term "low level" fine. Its like calling some color swatch "black" then arguing "that's not black _enough_ to be black". Any definition we give for an absolute term like that will be fundamentally arbitrary, but we know right from wrong when we see it.
A language does not have to replace C to be "low level". You sound like the type of person who, thirty years ago, would argue that C isn't low-level because it isn't assembly.
- vvanders 10y agoNotice I'm being careful to mention semantics not performance(although those semantics largely help with the latter). The ASM<->C bridge is much smaller since you're talking about registers and possibly custom instructions that are usually exposed via intrinsics. For me the dividing line is if your language abstracts away memory management. If I don't get control over where memory lives and how I access it not low level. PC is this nice homogeneous memory structure but there's many systems that have specific semantics around different address spaces and you may need to be able to access and manipulate them in specific ways.
- justinsaccount 10y agoI don't think go is much more low level than python, to me it is just much more explicit and verbose..
- ssebastianj 10y agoYeah. As a side note, I remember what Steve Klabnik once said: "Basically, Go is like a lower level Ruby or Python and Rust is like a higher level C or C++".
- douche 10y agoIs Go a low-level language, or a slightly lower-level language? Woodhouse, fetch a rug!