4 ms·
That’s a fine analysis, but most people have a more generally accepted definition of what low-level means in a context of modern systems programming languages.
by jb1991 2y ago
That’s a fine analysis, but most people have a more generally accepted definition of what low-level means in a context of modern systems programming languages. I suppose you have provided an alternate definition, but it’s not really in the context of what most are thinking about in this arena.
It’s a bit like a podcast I listened to recently where someone suggested any language with a proper algebraic sum type can be considered a dynamic typed language in some ways. I mean, if you get philosophical about definitions and lean heavily mainly on historical context, it’s possible to say just about anything.
- pjmlp 2y agoAnd some people call themselves engineers after a bootcamp, instead of actually earning a Software Engineering accreditation. "C Is Not a Low-level Language Your computer is not a fast PDP-11" https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479 Naturally those people will also vouch that an article on the ACM, written by a one of the GCC Objective-C and GNUStep early contributors, and nowadays key researcher on CHERI project isn't something to take into consideration.
- probablybetter 2y ago... but, garbage collection, no direct memory management = impossible to write any firmware etc that needed to directly set bitflags and such. how could you call Go "low-level systems programming"? Relative to Ruby, an interpreted dynamic language, sure, I will grant you that Go is lower-level, in the sense that you can compile a binary executable from it. Go also happens to have web server primitives in their standard library and you COULD build a web app with only net/http...
- jb1991 2y agoMoving the goal posts is a classic trait of HN behavior.