Posted by Toby Inkster on 07/16/06 23:20

cwdjrxyz wrote:

> An about face, if I ever saw one. I much prefer the earlier usage
> refered to above. Of course, with such a history of usage, the term low
> and high level now should not be used because it now can cause
> confusion. So I guess we should all just specify the language involved.

Not at all.

Consider the terms "cheap" and "expensive". 10 years ago, a 400 MHz
Pentium II Celeron computer with 32 MB RAM and 3.2 GB hard disk for £350
would be considered cheap. Today, paying the same amount for the same
computer would be considered very expensive.

In London, 30 deg C is considered a hot summer's day; but in Sydney it's
not; if the Sun's surface temperature suddenly dropped to 30 deg C,
astronomers would count that as a very cold spell.

This doesn't make the terms "cheap" and "expensive", or "hot" and "cold"
confuding though; one simply realises that these things lie along a scale;
A can be hot compared against B, but cold compared with C.

Similarly, C++ is high-level compared with Assembly code, but *low-level*
compared with Javascript.

> By the way, I try not to use Wikipedia and other such online sources
> that depend on user input.

Then you're missing out -- for the most part it's a very well-written and
useful resource. Of course, like all references you should weigh up what
it has to say; consider the knowledge levels and potential biases of all
its contributors and editors; and compare the information with that from
other authorities.

If you'd prefer:
http://foldoc.org/foldoc.cgi?low-level+language
http://foldoc.org/foldoc.cgi?high-level+languages

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

[Back to original message]