Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman
From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Lets define "High level" (was: Need reference for "firewall"...)
Message-ID: <26977@megaron.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 30 Oct 90 21:06:45 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 19

In article  <1132@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> nick@cs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
]... the properties I associate with
]higher level languages (less restrictions on built-in datatypes, first-class
]status of data objects, extensible types, heap security, abstraction,
]interfaces, modularisation and so on)...
] I'm sure that a non-applicative language could support these
]properties as well, but I'm not aware of one (although Eiffel comes close,
]I suppose, and Modula-3, although it's fairly conventional).

How about Common Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, APL, and Icon?  All are
non-applicative, all have some or all of the above properties, and all
are at least as well known as any applicative language.  I'm not
familiar with Eiffel, but I wouldn't call Modula-3 a higher-level
language.  It's a medium-level language.
-- 
					David Gudeman
Department of Computer Science
The University of Arizona        gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
Tucson, AZ 85721                 noao!arizona!gudeman