William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2008, at 2:17 PM, sergio masci wrote:
>
>   
>>> K&R stated that C is a LOW level language.
>>> Not an HLL!
>>>
>>>       
>> Compared to other languages of its time it is low level.
>>     
>
> And the C of today is rather different than K&R C.  
Maybe C++ or C# are different but C is near the same.

> In particular,
> part of what made the original C "low level" was that it lacked any
> sort of I/O capabilities or standardized function libraries (compare
> to fortran, pl/1, cobol, where a large part of the language is IO
> capability.)  By the time you add a Posix library definition and
> function prototypes to what a C compiler is expected to provide,
> you're well up there with the other HLLs...
>
> BillW
>
>   
Your are wrong: high or low level is referred to the abstracion level 
from from assembly to human language not to capabilities!

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist