>>4
It is a well known fact that every thread on /prog/ is started by a troll, THEREFORE I CAN CONCLUDE THAT YOU ARE TROLLING
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-09 0:36 ID:tWGu2GfO
It is a high level language. Its just most people dont like it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-09 5:22 ID:rv1XMTRK
let's settle on common ground. It is partially high-level maybe?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-09 6:01 ID:unW3NAE7
Hi, I am Dr. Anonymous.
Java is a low-level language. Mid-level at best.
A high-level language is loosely defined as something that allows you to work with a higher degree of abstraction over the machine and structure underneath it, and to provide built-in useful abstract types with native syntax for immediates.
Java, being a static typed language without type inference, and providing no lists or dictionaries, is NOT a high-level language.
>>9
there's a HUGE difference between a low-level language and a low-level application.
a low-level language is a language that it's not readable by a human. example given, brainfuck.
a low-level application is an app that accesses the hardware etc.
>>a low-level application is an app that accesses the hardware etc.
And high-level languages eschew hardware, talking to God alone?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 3:27 ID:mibaPmH5
>>14
>one word: the forced object-orientation of code
Win
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 3:32 ID:toCnbRSY
Java is high level. It's not the highest level programming language that exists, but it is certainly not low level.
It's my view that every programmer should be required to program in assembly language at least once. This way they will understand the pain that is really low level programming and thank whatever they worship that higher level languages exist. If, after that experience, someone still wants to claim that Java is low level they should find themselves an insane asylum.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 5:52 ID:t9BDenzO
>>17
Java is not higher-level than QBasic. Both are mid-level at best, lacking key features such as built-in lists with native syntax, proper typing (dynamic or static inferred), etc. It's also close to its hardware, as close as C++ is.
Assembly and its portable version, C, as well as the popular "Touring-complete extension" C++, are low-level languages.
For a high-level language, think Lisp, Python, Perl, Ruby, Lua, JavaScript, Haskell...
>>19
Of course not. It is Turing-complete, but it's not Touring-complete. As an Anonymous from this board pointed out, C++ was created to be a Touring-complete extension to C.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 18:15 ID:sWRFtkWY
But all this stuff is obsolete today because BBCode IS the Touring-complete Reference Language
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 18:41 ID:rajBdM6d
>>18
Did somebody just say `Lisp'?
//`'''```,
o //LISP `.,
,....OOo. .c;.',,,.'``.,,.`
.' ____.,'.//
/ _____ \___/.'
| / || \\---\|
|| || \\ ||
co co co co