Author |
Message |
|
WEIRD_UNIVERSE
Newbie
Joined: 25 Dec 2007 Posts: 26
|
Posted: 25 Dec 2007 08:46:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EDIT: Nevermind, I just looked it up on Wikipedia, I'm right, he's wrong. Sorry about the pointless post.
Last edited by Guest on 25 Dec 2007 08:47:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luby I want to go back to Philmont!!
Calc Guru
Joined: 23 Apr 2006 Posts: 1477
|
Posted: 26 Dec 2007 10:44:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, can you post your findings? We usually do that instead of making a dead topic.
Welcome to UTI! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Liazon title goes here
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 2007
|
Posted: 27 Dec 2007 11:30:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
wikipedia said it was a mid-level language |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
Posted: 27 Dec 2007 09:23:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought there are only high, low, and machine languages, I don't know what a mid-level is. This is why you can't use wikipedia for everything. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DarkerLine ceci n'est pas une |
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 04 Nov 2003 Posts: 8328
|
Posted: 27 Dec 2007 09:55:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well I would suppose a mid-level language would be in between high-level and low-level languages. I think that fits C++ rather well considering it has all that object-oriented abstraction, which is high-level, but also deals with the low-level stuff it gets from C with pointers and null-terminated strings and such.
Of course, I'm not a C++ programmer (I've only programmed it at all for one year, and even then it was using a somewhat demented version that my school found for Comp. Sci. classes), so the above should be taken with a grain of salt. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
Posted: 27 Dec 2007 10:11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But C is a high level language as well. So getting things from C as it does only means it inherited from a high level language still making it completely high level. (thats too much high level in one statement) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JoeImp Enlightened
Active Member
Joined: 24 May 2003 Posts: 747
|
Posted: 28 Dec 2007 12:52:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
C is definitely not high-level compared to anything except assembly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CoBB
Active Member
Joined: 30 Jun 2003 Posts: 720
|
Posted: 28 Dec 2007 03:08:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
The level also depends on the programmer. Even Java can be programmed in a purely C-like style... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Newbie
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 2247
|
Posted: 28 Dec 2007 11:12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
JoeImp wrote: C is definitely not high-level compared to anything except assembly.
[post="117802"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
A Java programmer might consider C to be a low-level language, whereas someone who writes assembly would consider C to be high-level. Assembly isn't machine, and C isn't close to assembly, so C has to be high. Mid level programming doesn't exist that I know of and C doesn't fit into any other category. If I were to take a stand it would be with the assembly programmers and not the high level ones. To be honest they are relative terms and it depends who you talk to.
Last edited by Guest on 28 Dec 2007 11:14:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Liazon title goes here
Bandwidth Hog
Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 2007
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2007 09:16:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie wrote: I thought there are only high, low, and machine languages, I don't know what a mid-level is. This is why you can't use wikipedia for everything.
[post="117796"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
just quoting the wiki to answer luby's question |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WEIRD_UNIVERSE
Newbie
Joined: 25 Dec 2007 Posts: 26
|
Posted: 29 Dec 2007 02:10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie wrote: JoeImp wrote: C is definitely not high-level compared to anything except assembly.
[post="117802"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
A Java programmer might consider C to be a low-level language, whereas someone who writes assembly would consider C to be high-level. Assembly isn't machine, and C isn't close to assembly, so C has to be high. Mid level programming doesn't exist that I know of and C doesn't fit into any other category. If I were to take a stand it would be with the assembly programmers and not the high level ones. To be honest they are relative terms and it depends who you talk to.
[post="117839"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
That is true, the definition of a languages highness is entirely relative compared to the languages it relates to, and the person you are talking to. On the offside, I did here of a language that I think is seldom heard of, C--. It is able to be programmed more like assembly, but has a lot of high level C influence.
I personally think that assembly can be considered machine language if you look at the one to one corrispondence between it and the opcodes it represents. Well, okay, that might not be entirely true, but if you think about it, assembly is essentially just a way to write raw machine language programs without remembering those nasty opcodes. This is what separates high level from low level in my opinion. An assembler is basically just replacing mneumonics with the opcodes they represent, this one to one corrispondence between ASM and machine language is what I consider the hallmark of low level. In converse, compilers are very difficult to construct, and quite sophisticated. A compiler has to "figure out" how to translate the high level code you write into low level asm instructions, and a single line of code in C often takes multiple ASM inctructions.
It is this, I consider the line between low level and high level to be faulty. I would consider this the border between high and low level languages, because C is a really easy way to write assembly programs, but I don't think it's quite high level enough to be "high level". That's my thoughts on this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Recursive Acronym
Advanced Member
Joined: 11 Dec 2006 Posts: 499
|
Posted: 02 Jan 2008 08:24:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Newbie wrote: Assembly isn't machine[post="117839"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Hmm... I was under the impression that assembly code simply rerepresents machine code, and the two are therefore pretty much the same thing. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WEIRD_UNIVERSE
Newbie
Joined: 25 Dec 2007 Posts: 26
|
Posted: 03 Jan 2008 06:28:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Recursive Acronym wrote: Newbie wrote: Assembly isn't machine[post="117839"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Hmm... I was under the impression that assembly code simply rerepresents machine code, and the two are therefore pretty much the same thing.
[post="118067"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Essentially they are the same thing symbolicly, but ASM isn't technically machine code since it can't be executed like it, that's the assemblers job. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|