Browse thread
Wikipedia
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | David Teller <David.Teller@e...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] what is high-level (was: Wikipedia) |
Le vendredi 04 novembre 2005 à 09:13 -0600, Brian Hurt a écrit :
> >From that link:
> > Although it is a high-level language, C is much closer to assembly
> > language than are most other high-level languages.
>
> In other words, all languages are high-level, some are just more
> high-level than others.
Fair enough on that. Still, we might need to define a notion of
higher-level language. Perhaps a language A is of higher-level than a
language B if the mode of thought imposed/encouraged by A are less
related to actual technical issues of language implementation and more
to issues of the target domain of your program ?
> Learning a new paradigm is hard. As someone who has done it three times
> now (moving from the sphagetti code of Basic to the procedural style of
> Pascal, then moving to Object Oriented, and most recently Functional),
> trust me on this. Learning a new paradigm makes learning a new language
> 10 times as hard AT LEAST as learning a new language in the old paradigm.
Same here, plus logical programming somewhere along the way.
Still, in OCaml/Haskell/ML, you do need some understanding of the type
system, which is typically not necessary in other programming languages.
> Brian
Cheers,
David
--
Read, Write, and Publish Standard eBooks
Free, Open Software, Open Standards and multi-platform
The OpenBerg project http://www.openberg.org