5 ms·

The problem is that the "level" of a language is relative to other languages. If C is a high level language, that means you can group it into the same pool as J

by ryeguy 14y ago

The problem is that the "level" of a language is relative to other languages. If C is a high level language, that means you can group it into the same pool as Java, C#, Haskell, Python, and Ruby. Don't you see a bit of a difference here? Unless there is a significant number of actual languages, not concepts, that are below C, it logically has to be called a "low level language" because there really isn't much below it but there are TONS of languages above it. At the very least, it's something like a medium-level language. Grouping it with much higher-abstracted languages is just wrong.

afandian 14y ago
You can do some very interesting things with function pointers, structs, unions and judicious use of void pointers. I would absolutely group it with Java. Not saying they are very very similar, but you can do similar things. Now grouping Java with Haskell, that doesn't seem like a reasonable grouping. Of course, it's all swings and roundabouts really. You can draw lines anywhere.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Yes indeed, you can do some very interesting things like interpret the raw bits of a float as a character and crash or corrupt your program.
  - afandian 14y ago
    When you use void*s, you do so carefully. You can make mistakes in any language. You can get objects in Python that don't do what you expected because there's no type safety, leading to crashy behaviour (granted, no memory corruption). I think you might have misread my comment as "you can't make mistakes in C".
- betterunix 14y ago
  "You can do some very interesting things with function pointers, structs, unions and judicious use of void pointers" You can also do interesting things with straight assembly language. How does that make a language high level? That you would ever deal directly with pointers is evidence that C is not really a high level language.
peterevans 14y ago
Here's the thing: "high-level", when applied to a programming language, has a historical context. It means something specific (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language), and what it means and has always meant is that the language in question abstracts away registers and allows structured programming (as in, through the use of if, while, switch, for, as opposed to using labels and branching). It's fine if you want to call "high-level" relative. But it should be acknowledged that "high-level" is not simply a strict comparison between the features of one language and another. And it SHOULD be acknowledged that C is, by convention, a high-level language. Python is definitely a higher-level language, but C is still a high-level language.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Yes, and refusing to update (human) language in response to changes in the computing landscape is exactly the reason C fanatics don't see the weaknesses of C.
- bcbrown 14y ago
  Did you read the "Relative Meaning" section of that link? It specifically discusses C.
  - peterevans 14y ago
    Yes, I did read the section. And I'm not blind to the fact that languages will age, and there are certainly many, many languages more advanced and higher-level than C is now. I think that's good. It's a bit weird to me to see people who really never programmed in C, and for whom the concept of a pointer is a bit foreign, but time marches on. I suppose my quibble is semantic at its heart. To say C is not high-level language may be an opinion, both valid and not without reason. But it may also show a lack of perspective -- some missing history. It's a lower-level language compared to many, without question. But it's still a high-level language, and I have not only my reasons for saying so, but evidence to the point.
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  Here's the thing: The English language is polysemous. Computer science jargon even more so. Meaning that any particular term can often have many gradations of meaning. So "X means Y" does not necessarily imply "X does not mean Z". Especially when Y and Z are similar concepts. I suppose we could lament the inherent ambiguity of the jargon, but the truth is that for the most part problems only result when ambiguous language is used in combination with an argumentative person armed with equal measures of pedantic zeal and failure to grasp the fundamental characteristics of natural language. Without that element, for the most part any reasonably knowledgeable person should be able to figure out which of the particular meanings is at play from context. For example, even though the term "high level language" is used in multiple ways, the statement "C is not a high level language" is not all that ambiguous, even when considered in isolation. As long as you're willing to grant that the person making the statement is not an idiot, then it's trivial to determine that they weren't using the "everything but machine and assembly language" definition.

by ryeguy 14y ago

afandian 14y ago

You can do some very interesting things with function pointers, structs, unions and judicious use of void pointers. I would absolutely group it with Java. Not saying they are very very similar, but you can do similar things. Now grouping Java with Haskell, that doesn't seem like a reasonable grouping. Of course, it's all swings and roundabouts really. You can draw lines anywhere.

Evbn 14y ago
Yes indeed, you can do some very interesting things like interpret the raw bits of a float as a character and crash or corrupt your program.
- afandian 14y ago
  When you use void*s, you do so carefully. You can make mistakes in any language. You can get objects in Python that don't do what you expected because there's no type safety, leading to crashy behaviour (granted, no memory corruption). I think you might have misread my comment as "you can't make mistakes in C".
betterunix 14y ago
"You can do some very interesting things with function pointers, structs, unions and judicious use of void pointers" You can also do interesting things with straight assembly language. How does that make a language high level? That you would ever deal directly with pointers is evidence that C is not really a high level language.

peterevans 14y ago

Here's the thing: "high-level", when applied to a programming language, has a historical context. It means something specific (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language), and what it means and has always meant is that the language in question abstracts away registers and allows structured programming (as in, through the use of if, while, switch, for, as opposed to using labels and branching). It's fine if you want to call "high-level" relative. But it should be acknowledged that "high-level" is not simply a strict comparison between the features of one language and another. And it SHOULD be acknowledged that C is, by convention, a high-level language. Python is definitely a higher-level language, but C is still a high-level language.

Evbn 14y ago
Yes, and refusing to update (human) language in response to changes in the computing landscape is exactly the reason C fanatics don't see the weaknesses of C.
bcbrown 14y ago
Did you read the "Relative Meaning" section of that link? It specifically discusses C.
- peterevans 14y ago
  Yes, I did read the section. And I'm not blind to the fact that languages will age, and there are certainly many, many languages more advanced and higher-level than C is now. I think that's good. It's a bit weird to me to see people who really never programmed in C, and for whom the concept of a pointer is a bit foreign, but time marches on. I suppose my quibble is semantic at its heart. To say C is not high-level language may be an opinion, both valid and not without reason. But it may also show a lack of perspective -- some missing history. It's a lower-level language compared to many, without question. But it's still a high-level language, and I have not only my reasons for saying so, but evidence to the point.
bunderbunder 14y ago
Here's the thing: The English language is polysemous. Computer science jargon even more so. Meaning that any particular term can often have many gradations of meaning. So "X means Y" does not necessarily imply "X does not mean Z". Especially when Y and Z are similar concepts. I suppose we could lament the inherent ambiguity of the jargon, but the truth is that for the most part problems only result when ambiguous language is used in combination with an argumentative person armed with equal measures of pedantic zeal and failure to grasp the fundamental characteristics of natural language. Without that element, for the most part any reasonably knowledgeable person should be able to figure out which of the particular meanings is at play from context. For example, even though the term "high level language" is used in multiple ways, the statement "C is not a high level language" is not all that ambiguous, even when considered in isolation. As long as you're willing to grant that the person making the statement is not an idiot, then it's trivial to determine that they weren't using the "everything but machine and assembly language" definition.