4 ms·
Just my opinion, don't mean to be inflammatory, but if the user has to know and manually manage stack vs heap objects, then I wouldn't call it "High Level" lang
by noncoml 7y ago
Just my opinion, don't mean to be inflammatory, but if the user has to know and manually manage stack vs heap objects, then I wouldn't call it "High Level" language.
- zozbot234 7y agoThat raises a question, would you call C# a "High Level" language?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- rubber_duck 7y agoIn C# it's more relevant to understand semantics (ref/value type) than allocation details (unless you actually care about low level details for performance/interop)
- nobleach 7y agoI'd say the fact that structs are stack-allocated, and you can slip right through years of development without even knowing that fact... yeah, it's pretty high-level. C# doesn't have `malloc`. .Net apps are managed, so all of those low-level things one has to/gets to do are abstracted away.
- pmiller2 7y agoThen just allocate everything on the stack and use the optional garbage collector: http://libcello.org/learn/garbage-collection http://libcello.org/learn/garbage-collection
- jessaustin 7y agoAllocating on the stack doesn't need GC.
- pmiller2 7y agoNo, but it makes it easier (more “high level”) when you don’t need to explicitly deallocate things, ever.