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?