Talk:High-level programming language
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
- 1 needs cleaned up
- 2 High-level programming is slightly *Wrong*?
- 3 Machine code?
- 4 Isn't an intermediate compiler the same as a translator?
- 5 Major Misconception
- 6 Garbled second sentence in opening para
- 7 THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS
- 8 Need help editing
- 9 This page is a mess
needs cleaned up
How to mark it? But it says C "was", "might be", and then "is" a high-level language. Also, PHP isn't high-level? Really? It's interpreted, reflexive, and (somewhat) Obj-oriented. If this page is really going to say it "isn't" high-level, it needs to explain *why* (not just "it's a web language"). HTML is a markup language -- neither high nor low, because it's not a programming language. It's a document, not a program. PHP, while often used for scripts, can be used to write programs performing functions just like those of a command-line C program (but with less code). So how is PHP *not* high-level?
High-level programming is slightly *Wrong*?
Not sure I am interpreting this correctly. Could someone clarify?
well to be honest it is not really possible for high-level programming to be "gay." is it?
This page is wrong on so many levels. Are C and C++ really defined as High Level Languages? Sure, high level compared to machine code, but compared to Haskell, Erlang or Python? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The accepted definition of "High Level" includes all Programming Languages as we know. The limit is set at the point where is no direct translation to machine code, such as in Assembly Language (probably the unique category of "Low Level" language). "High Level" is a, now obsolete, term to indicate that you are not bounded by the concrete machine definided by you computer but rather by an abstract machine defined by your language, which is usually much more complex, even if this language is simply Fortran 0, Plankalkul or COBOL. 1. Terrence W. Pratt, Programming Languages - Design and Implementation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981). 1. Michael L. Scott, Programming Language Pragmatics, Third Edition, 3rd ed. (Morgan Kaufmann, 2009).
anyone know how this works with machine code? Becuase I can't figure out how each instruction in high-level language corresponds to one instruction in machine code. Any one help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Most higher level languages compile to assembly. The compiler interprets the high level code into assembly. However, the penalty arises from the fact that you're relying 100% on the compiler for how well it does the interpreting and optimizing.
Isn't an intermediate compiler the same as a translator?
I don't understand how an intermediate compiler isn't just translating to bytecode. Since my area of expertise is much higher than this, I don't think boldness is appropriate for me. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Interpreters and compilers are programs that process programming languages. Languages are not "interpreted" languages or "compiled" languages. Rather, language implementations use interpretation or compilation. For example, Algol 60 and Fortran have both been interpreted (even though they were more typically compiled). Similarly, Scheme has been compiled (even though it has been interpreted in most popular implementations. Java shows the difficulty of trying to apply these labels to languages rather than to implementations; Java is compiled to bytecode and the bytecode is subsequently executed by either interpretation (in a JVM) or compilation (typically with a just-in-time compiler such as HotSpot, again in a JVM). --Kdcooper (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Similarly, C# and Visual Basic.Net are compiled to MSIL then just-in-time compiled to native machine code at the time of execution (this is a different strategy than Java as tn incurs longer loading times to get the benefit of faster execution). User:Hoshantm
Garbled second sentence in opening para
The phrase or be from the specification of the program seemed to be either missing a word/words to give it clarity or an accidental copy and paste from the Low-level programming language page, which contains the identical phrase in a much clearer context. I have supplied an alternative characteristic of high-level languages. If you are the original author and know what you meant, please do revert the change but please also with greater clarity. User:itsbruce —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS
Many programmers today might refer to C as low-level, as it lacks a large runtime-system (no garbage collection, etc.), basically supports only scalar operations, and provides direct memory addressing. It, therefore, readily blends with assembly language and the machine level of CPUs and microcontrollers.
Assembly language may itself be regarded as a higher level (but often still one-to-one if used without macros) representation of machine code, as it supports concepts such as constants and (limited) expressions, sometimes even variables, procedures, and data structures. Machine code, in its turn, is inherently at a slightly higher level than the microcode or micro-operations used internally in many processors.Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Need help editing
I added a section at the end of the introduction that gives examples of high-level languages that I happen to know, but I think that a more scholarly and complete treatment for this page would be to include a complete list of high-level programming languages. Can anyone with expertise help with this? Daniellevitin (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This page is a mess
This page has degenerated badly over the past two years and needs a major edit. Too miuch etail has been added to the introduction when it would be better explored in the main article, for one thing. People have also been adding details about their own pet languages which are not relevant here. The whole Eiffel section should be replaced by a concise reference or just removed entirely, for example. Itsbruce (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)