Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:17:17 +0200, Pelle wrote: > On 09/29/2010 01:22 PM, retard wrote: >> Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:00:33 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:38:43 -0400, retard<r...@tard.com.invalid> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:20:27 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Does C# >>>> have access to inline assembler? Agreed, it doesn't provide many new >>>> high level features compared to D, but it doesn't have all the >>>> interfaces with raw metal. That makes it higher level language in my >>>> book. It's less dependent on the hardware platform. >>> >>> You mean, C# doesn't provide access to the lower level constructs? >>> IMO D is at the same level even if it does provide inline assembler. >>> The simple fact is, you don't *have* to use low level features of D, >>> you can stick to the C#-level constructs. Hell, you can even write >>> full useful programs in D without ever touching a pointer or inline >>> assembler. >> >> Being a higher level language isn't some positive optimum. I guess part >> of the reason you disagree is that you take everything personally if >> someone is critical towards D. My personal opinion is that D is in many >> cases a *better* language than C# and one of the reasons is that it's a >> lower level language. You can find one definition here: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_programming_language >> >> > Let me provide silly pictures. Ascii, of course. > > D C# > --- --- <-- high level > | | > | | > | | > | --- > | > --- <-- low level > > D providing lower level features may make it a lower level language, but > it also might not. :-) > > DISCLAIMER: I am wrong.
You're not wrong. I saw your point and liked the fact that you didn't start arguing pointlessly. The picture also illustrates what I originally had in mind. These terms aren't well defined which makes this kind of discussion rather unfruitful in the first place.