| ▲ | applfanboysbgon an hour ago | |
> I believe the reason C is targeted specifically is because C communities are where this myth, and its religiosity (!), is the strongest. C being a low-level language is not a myth if, as normal people do, you consider assembly languages to be low-level languages. The article itself offers assembly as the low-level language and makes no effort to redress this later. If you want to argue that there are no low-level languages when it comes to programming modern CPUs, you are free to do so, but that is a different argument. And it is arguably not a fruitful one because then the terminology loses all meaning. Okay, you've defined assembly as a high-level language. Now what have you accomplished other than making it harder for people to articulate and categorise classes of languages? We'll still need an adjective for distinguishing between such wildly distinct languages assembly and Python, so we have to come up with something else to replace "low-level" and you haven't accomplished much of anything at all. If you think low-level programming has gotten too far from the bare metal, or if you think processors are designed for C and that's a problem, just argue that directly instead of this really torturous detour singling out C and how people use terminology to communicate useful concepts. | ||
| ▲ | mustache_kimono an hour ago | parent [-] | |
> C being a low-level language is not a myth if, as normal people do, you consider assembly languages to be low-level languages. I'd suggest you're holding that stick too tight! > If you want to argue that there are no low-level languages when it comes to programming modern CPUs, you are free to do so, but that is a different argument. Not if you read the whole article? > And it is arguably not a fruitful one because then the terminology loses all meaning. Okay, you've defined assembly as a high-level language. Again, what if the terminology isn't very important? I'd argue the distinction between high and low level languages is not an important distinction, because it is so crude. For example, C/C++/Rust have all been described as high level languages at one time or another. C people seem to be the only ones that take real offense to this. | ||