Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gumby.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!uwvax!gumby!g-frank From: g-frank@gumby.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: High-levelity Message-ID: <239@gumby.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 00:12:35 EST Article-I.D.: gumby.239 Posted: Thu Jan 3 00:12:35 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 00:46:52 EST References: <83@mit-athena.ARPA> <235@gumby.UUCP> <6834@watdaisy.UUCP> <547@vu44.UUCP> Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 15 > If you define 'high-levelness' as a function of the application > you want, how about this definition: > > The degree of high-levelness of a language X for a problem Y is > defined as the size of the biggest subset of a set of programmers > who come up with the same solution, divided by the size of the > base set. > > Jack Jansen, {seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!vu44!jack One of my arguments for the high-levelness of programmatic calculus and related languages was, in fact, that given a precise enough specification (ah, there's the rub), different individuals will tend to come up with very similar code. On the other hand, I've never been a grader in a class on the subject. Can anyone out there verify or make hash of this assertion?