c is a low-level language or neither low level nor high level language

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by pabbu, Nov 5, 2005.

  1. pabbu

    pabbu Guest

    hi!
    I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language or neither low level
    nor high level language.please give me details.
    with regards,
    vinod
     
    pabbu, Nov 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    pabbu <> wrote:
    > I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language or neither low level
    >nor high level language.please give me details.


    Rather than have this turn into a long quibble about semantics,
    let me turn the question around and ask you:

    What do *you* mean by "low level language"?
    What do *you* mean by "high level language"?

    The answer to your question depends upon the definitions that
    are in use, so tell us -your- definition and we'll tell you
    which side C falls on.
    --
    I am spammed, therefore I am.
     
    Walter Roberson, Nov 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. pabbu

    Mike Wahler Guest

    "pabbu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > hi!
    > I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language or neither low level
    > nor high level language.please give me details.


    Only you can know the details of your doubt. Care to share them?
    How low must something be for you to consider it low?
    How high must something be for you to consider it high?
    Lower than what?
    Higher than what?

    -Mike
     
    Mike Wahler, Nov 5, 2005
    #3
  4. > I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language or neither low level
    >nor high level language.please give me details.


    How high is high?

    Assembly language, especially with macros and symbols, is much higher
    than binary entered on the console switches in binary.

    Probably the ultimate in high-level languages is "and God said,
    'let there be light'". Notice how God didn't have to bother with
    Maxwell's equations or any of that other design detail?

    Gordon L. Burditt
     
    Gordon Burditt, Nov 5, 2005
    #4
  5. pabbu

    Malcolm Guest

    "pabbu" <> wrote
    >
    > I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language or neither low level
    > nor high level language.please give me details.
    > with regards,
    > vinod
    >

    It's a low level language.
    Every C statement translates to a few assembly instructions on a typical
    processor.
    The standard library functions are also all rather simple to implement,
    except arguably malloc() on big systems.

    However it is possible to write some very complicated libraries for C -
    these would be called "high level libraries". That doesn't make the language
    itself high level.
     
    Malcolm, Nov 5, 2005
    #5
  6. pabbu

    Guest

    Malcolm wrote:
    > Every C statement translates to a few assembly instructions on a typical
    > processor.


    In fact, on a lot of processors I work on (PIC, AVR, 68k) I usually
    find that each line of C code translates to exactly 1 assembly
    instruction. Except for compound math statements like (x*(y/2) & 0x0f |
    0xf0). Not only was C originally evolved from a kind of
    high-level-assembly language but some modern CPUs were designed to run
    C. Atmel's AVR, ARM's ARM, and Transmeta's Crusoe processors were
    designed with input/comments from compiler writers.
     
    , Nov 5, 2005
    #6
  7. pabbu

    Marc Boyer Guest

    Le 05-11-2005, pabbu <> a écrit :
    > hi!
    > I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language or neither low level
    > nor high level language.please give me details.
    > with regards,


    It was a high level langage, but with time, general level
    had increased.

    Marc Boyer
     
    Marc Boyer, Nov 7, 2005
    #7
  8. pabbu

    pete Guest

    Marc Boyer wrote:
    >
    > Le 05-11-2005, pabbu <> a écrit :
    > > hi!
    > > I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language
    > > or neither low level
    > > nor high level language.please give me details.
    > > with regards,


    > It was a high level langage, but with time, general level
    > had increased.


    K&R 1978 Preface (also K&R2 "Preface to the First Edition")
    "C is not a very high level language"

    K&R 1978 Introduction
    "C is a relatively low level language."

    --
    pete
     
    pete, Nov 7, 2005
    #8
  9. pabbu

    Marc Boyer Guest

    pete <> a écrit :
    > Marc Boyer wrote:
    >> > I have a doubt that 'c' is low level language
    >> > or neither low level
    >> > nor high level language.please give me details.
    >> > with regards,

    >
    >> It was a high level langage, but with time, general level
    >> had increased.

    >
    > K&R 1978 Preface (also K&R2 "Preface to the First Edition")
    > "C is not a very high level language"
    >
    > K&R 1978 Introduction
    > "C is a relatively low level language."


    Thanks for the citations.

    Marc Boyer
     
    Marc Boyer, Nov 7, 2005
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Luigi Donatello Asero

    A text which neither gets very narrow nor disappears

    Luigi Donatello Asero, Oct 3, 2005, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    889
    Jonathan N. Little
    Jan 6, 2006
  2. -berlin.de
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,083
    Richard Tobin
    Feb 26, 2007
  3. zyraco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,725
    zyraco
    Nov 10, 2009
  4. zyraco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,074
    zyraco
    Nov 10, 2009
  5. zyraco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,326
    zyraco
    Nov 10, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page