4 ms·

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/wik

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.
- saraid216 14y ago
  > polysemous I did not know this word. Thank you.
sbmassey 14y ago
Under that classification, what is a low level language then? Even Forth abstracts away registers, and allows structured programming (or a sort). Is the set of low level languages that people have heard of in 2013 an empty set?
- chipsy 14y ago
  "Heard of", maybe not. But "working with" I can believe. A friend of mine was writing an assembler with a built-in arithmetic expression syntax last year. Clearly it was low-level, because it wasn't trying to abstract away hardware - but it also wasn't just a straight-up (macro) assembly language, since it provided some specific features that needed a more sophisticated compiler to work properly. When we speak of low-level coding, almost any abstraction can constitute a huge jump in power from the machine 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.

saraid216 14y ago
> polysemous I did not know this word. Thank you.

sbmassey 14y ago

Under that classification, what is a low level language then? Even Forth abstracts away registers, and allows structured programming (or a sort). Is the set of low level languages that people have heard of in 2013 an empty set?

chipsy 14y ago
"Heard of", maybe not. But "working with" I can believe. A friend of mine was writing an assembler with a built-in arithmetic expression syntax last year. Clearly it was low-level, because it wasn't trying to abstract away hardware - but it also wasn't just a straight-up (macro) assembly language, since it provided some specific features that needed a more sophisticated compiler to work properly. When we speak of low-level coding, almost any abstraction can constitute a huge jump in power from the machine language.