Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #421
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.misc, comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Time for a new language? |
| Date | 2011-06-07 11:26 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <iskudv$4n9$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <isir0b$246$2@speranza.aioe.org> <27f391e528bef754bbbe3b05f7241046@dizum.com> <isjhsq$vt8$1@speranza.aioe.org> <043628bb-8b8b-4094-8e7b-b1c61a69b525@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
"tm" <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> wrote in message news:043628bb-8b8b-4094-8e7b-b1c61a69b525@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > I consider Seed7 higher level than Java and C++ because Seed7 > defines things in libraries that Java and C++ have hard-coded in > their compilers. Isn't it the other way around? If a feature exists only in a library, it must be defined using more primitive elements in the language. If the feature is built into the language, then surely that makes it higher level? > So I consider arrays defined with an abstract data > type as higher level than hard-coded arrays. Arrays are usually fairly primitive types. If a language doesn't directly have arrays, and they have to be constructed (by building a new data-type with pointers or whatever), again I don't see that as a high-level feature! > I consider things, that everybody can define, as higher level than > hard-coded do what I mean concepts (that only authors of compilers > and interpreters can change). A brick, that can be used to make anything, is higher level than a pre-fabricated section? I don't think so. Although certainly it is useful to be able to make something different.. -- Bartc
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-07 01:17 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 03:07 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-07 04:21 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-06-07 11:26 +0100
Re: Time for a new language? pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-07 07:45 -0400
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:02 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-07 12:49 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? gremnebulin <peterdjones@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-13 16:36 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 10:25 +1200
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-16 23:11 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-17 01:39 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? "H.J. Sander Bruggink" <sander.bruggink@uni-due.de> - 2011-06-17 11:05 +0200
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-17 02:54 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-17 10:55 -0700
Re: Time for a new language? tm <thomas.mertes@gmx.at> - 2011-06-17 00:55 -0700
csiph-web