Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: High-levelity Message-ID: <6834@watdaisy.UUCP> Date: Sun, 30-Dec-84 17:42:57 EST Article-I.D.: watdaisy.6834 Posted: Sun Dec 30 17:42:57 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 31-Dec-84 02:02:41 EST References: <83@mit-athena.ARPA> <235@gumby.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 34 How's this for a first approximation to a definition of high-levelness: If it is easier to translate between the problem being solved and a program in language X, than between the problem and a program in language Y, then X is higher-level than Y. (Notice that this is two-way translation. Those programmers who are satisfied with write-only languages may alter this for one-way translation, and define a different term.) Here are additional thoughts: If it is easier to translate a problem into a program than it is to translate the program into machine code, then the language is at least moderately high- level. (This may give a bonus to write-only languages. Anyone who can fix this defect, please e-mail.) If users of a language find their work easier than those who develop and enhance compilers for it, then the language is at least moderately high- level. We could try a direct comparison between total time spent by all application programmers using a particular compiler, and total time spent by all system programmers who maintain the compiler. After all, firms develop compilers when they expect to have a lot of customers, and the customers expect to use the compiler quite a bit. So, nearly all present-day languages are still low-level. True. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."