Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ukma.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!hasmed!qusavx!ukma!david
From: david@ukma.UUCP (David Herron, NPR Lover)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: high-levelity
Message-ID: <615@ukma.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 17:37:04 EST
Article-I.D.: ukma.615
Posted: Mon Feb  4 17:37:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 05:44:42 EST
Organization: Univ. of KY Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 42

I have been interested in this discussion.  But have stayed out of it
because I wasn't sure if I could contribute well.  But I have had one
idea that nobody else has talked about.

It has to do with the types of operators the language has.  A high
level language would have a high proportion of high level operators.
Most low level languages are extremely low level since the operations
they can perform are very limited.  But prolog is very high level since
one operator may represent much work.

This idea springs out of a feeling I got when I finally understood
what an integral was.  I all of a sudden KNEW that this squiggly
'S' shaped thing meant that I was supposed to do an infinite number
of additions of areas (all of which are infinitely small).  It is
just kind of staggering what kind of power that is.  I have felt that
same feeling for only two programming languages, Icon and Prolog. 
(Neither of which I know well, gosh darn it).  

At any rate.  By the above definition, Calculus is a very high
level language.




I also suspect that this is only part of the definition.  That the
"level" of the data types has a lot to do with language level.
(Level of data type would also affect level of operator, and 
vice versa.  hmmmm.....).


Well, thanks for listening to me.
-- 
-:--:-
David Herron;
		ARPA-> "ukma!david"@ANL-MCS or david%ukma.uucp@anl-mcs.arpa
		UUCP-> {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,research}!anlams!ukma!david
		UUCP-> {mcvax!qtlon,vax135,mddc}!qusavx!ukma!david
		UUCP-> {A-Large-Portion-of-The-World}!cbosgd!ukma!david

No stupid sayings (I can't think of one).

No stupid disclaimers (Nobody else would claim my statements anyway).