3 ms·

All languages back then, all of them, were "high-level" languages, including C. Look at the history of BCPL, B and C and how the goal was to write Unix in a "hi

All languages back then, all of them, were "high-level" languages, including C. Look at the history of BCPL, B and C and how the goal was to write Unix in a "high-level" language. You can go hear Brian Kernighan himself tell you all about it. C as a low-level language is revisionist history. Rust is a high-level language and yet it is a "lower level" language than Java. Same as C vs Pascal. You could write very low level code in Turbo Pascal back in the 80s, the demoscene used it a lot alongside assembly, it had inline assembly even. EDIT: and to answer your question on what else was "low-level", Forth.

fivea 5y ago
> All languages back then, all of them, were "high-level" languages, including C. The only interpretation where this assertion rings remotely true is if you follow a definition of "high level language" which boils down to "it's not assembly", which has not been the case for around half a century. It makes absolutely no sense to claim that languages such as COBOl and C are even close at the same level of abstraction, just because C is compiled, has loops, and has a standard library.
- sirwhinesalot 5y ago
  > The only interpretation where this assertion rings remotely true is if you follow a definition of "high level language" which boils down to "it's not assembly", which has not been the case for around half a century. It was the interpretation back then which is what we're discussing :)