3 ms·

Other than assembly, which barely qualifies as a language, what programming language is lower than C?

by throwaway87543 3y ago

casparvitch 3y ago
Forth/joy maybe?
drsopp 3y ago
B
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  Or T3X9, if you're prefer Algol-style syntax.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dist1ll 3y ago
In general terms, any language aiming to be lower-level than C should - have an "abstract" machine that is more concrete than C (and by extension less portable) - be easier to lower into optimal assembly (especially loop ops) - give you strong and precise compile-time guarantees about memory layout (padding, bitfields), variable sizes, register spilling, stack usage, etc.
pjmlp 3y ago
Plenty to chose from since 1958's introduction of JOVIAL, when one cares to research what has happened in the world of systems programming outside Bell Labs, and UNIX/C taking over the server room.
humanrebar 3y ago
LLVM IR
Nzen 3y ago
I think there is an argument that Brainfuck [0], et al, is lower than C, given that it eschews variables and functions. [0] https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  Low level means close to the processor, not small in scope. You could argue brainfuck is machine language for a theroetical infinite tape machine, but such a machine can only exist when implemented in high-level software.
lproven 3y ago
It does not need to be a relative statement in order to be correct. The statement "C is not close to the instruction set of a modern CPU" does not need to be validated by specifying examples of languages that are closer.
- danielvaughn 3y ago
  But if you're going to say that "C is not a low-level language", then yeah you kinda do need other languages beneath it.
  - lproven 3y ago
    Well, firstly, I'm not saying it. But no. That is what I meant when I said this is not a relative statement. If the title said "C is not the lowest-level language" then your objection would be valid... but it doesn't and it's not saying that. But before I go into some lengthy explanation: have you read the article, or are you responding to the title alone?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
giaour 3y ago
Fortran, maybe?

Other than assembly, which barely qualifies as a language, what programming language is lower than C?

casparvitch 3y ago

Forth/joy maybe?

drsopp 3y ago

Joker_vD 3y ago
Or T3X9, if you're prefer Algol-style syntax.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dist1ll 3y ago

In general terms, any language aiming to be lower-level than C should - have an "abstract" machine that is more concrete than C (and by extension less portable) - be easier to lower into optimal assembly (especially loop ops) - give you strong and precise compile-time guarantees about memory layout (padding, bitfields), variable sizes, register spilling, stack usage, etc.

pjmlp 3y ago

Plenty to chose from since 1958's introduction of JOVIAL, when one cares to research what has happened in the world of systems programming outside Bell Labs, and UNIX/C taking over the server room.

humanrebar 3y ago

LLVM IR

Nzen 3y ago

I think there is an argument that Brainfuck [0], et al, is lower than C, given that it eschews variables and functions. [0] https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck

AlecSchueler 3y ago
Low level means close to the processor, not small in scope. You could argue brainfuck is machine language for a theroetical infinite tape machine, but such a machine can only exist when implemented in high-level software.

lproven 3y ago

It does not need to be a relative statement in order to be correct. The statement "C is not close to the instruction set of a modern CPU" does not need to be validated by specifying examples of languages that are closer.

danielvaughn 3y ago
But if you're going to say that "C is not a low-level language", then yeah you kinda do need other languages beneath it.
- lproven 3y ago
  Well, firstly, I'm not saying it. But no. That is what I meant when I said this is not a relative statement. If the title said "C is not the lowest-level language" then your objection would be valid... but it doesn't and it's not saying that. But before I go into some lengthy explanation: have you read the article, or are you responding to the title alone?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

giaour 3y ago

Fortran, maybe?