4 ms·

Actually, the author's argument about PDP-11 is interesting because C would have never been considered a low level language back then, for any platform. Wiki d

Actually, the author's argument about PDP-11 is interesting because C would have never been considered a low level language back then, for any platform. Wiki definition, also what I was taught in my first CS class: "A low-level programming language is a programming language that provides little or no abstraction from a computer's instruction set architecture—commands or functions in the language map closely to processor instructions. Generally this refers to either machine code or assembly language." The term is evolving to match the time, as shown by the author's interpretation already being higher level than the original intention despite the goal of preventing exactly that.

munificent 8y ago
> Actually, the author's argument about PDP-11 is interesting because C would have never been considered a low level language back then, for any platform. Sure, agreed, but I don't think it's super interesting that words evolve in meaning over time. What I find strange about the comments here is that some people think the article's title is bad even though my experience is that many people today do think "C is a low level language" is a reasonable thing to say.
- Shikadi 8y ago
  I guess I'm arguing that it is a reasonable thing to say today in the right context. When I talk to web developers who don't understand anything about computer architecture for example it's much easier for me to tell them I'm a low level developer rather than explain that I design digital hardware (FPGA) and write drivers and firmware to interact with it. But I do agree that it's important developers know that C doesn't correspond to the CPU in the way they might mistakenly think it does
lowbloodsugar 8y ago
Heh. Yeah. Was programming ARM assembly in 1988. C compiler was far too high level. Look how its always saving these registers to memory! Meanwhile I'm dropping into FIQ mode just for the banked R8-R14. Now, sure, people say C is low level, and compared to Java it sure is. But it isn't low-level.

munificent 8y ago

> Actually, the author's argument about PDP-11 is interesting because C would have never been considered a low level language back then, for any platform. Sure, agreed, but I don't think it's super interesting that words evolve in meaning over time. What I find strange about the comments here is that some people think the article's title is bad even though my experience is that many people today do think "C is a low level language" is a reasonable thing to say.

Shikadi 8y ago
I guess I'm arguing that it is a reasonable thing to say today in the right context. When I talk to web developers who don't understand anything about computer architecture for example it's much easier for me to tell them I'm a low level developer rather than explain that I design digital hardware (FPGA) and write drivers and firmware to interact with it. But I do agree that it's important developers know that C doesn't correspond to the CPU in the way they might mistakenly think it does

lowbloodsugar 8y ago

Heh. Yeah. Was programming ARM assembly in 1988. C compiler was far too high level. Look how its always saving these registers to memory! Meanwhile I'm dropping into FIQ mode just for the banked R8-R14. Now, sure, people say C is low level, and compared to Java it sure is. But it isn't low-level.