Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site hadron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rlgvax!prcrs!hadron!jsdy
From: jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao)
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: high-levelity
Message-ID: <117@hadron.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Feb-85 20:51:19 EST
Article-I.D.: hadron.117
Posted: Sun Feb 24 20:51:19 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 06:28:40 EST
References: <615@ukma.UUCP>
Organization: Hadron, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 20

I think the best fuzzy-definition for this fuzzy concept is that a
higher-level language has higher-level abstraction of concepts.  That
is sufficiently fuzzy that, whatever you think is a better abstraction,
a language that has that is higher-level  f o r   y o u .  Let's not
forget that there is some subjectivity involved here, since languages
are used to communicate concepts, and typically at least one of the
entities involved is a human or other sentient entity.	;-)

The above definition would include david@ukma's concept of more
powerful operators.  It would also include better control structures
(an extension of "operator") to perform more abstract operations.
It would include better data type definitions:  first, of more
"natural" atomic data types; then of complex data types; then of
data types with actions associated with them, and so forth.

No flames, please:  I will respond either OK, we disagree or yes,
for you that is a better abstraction.  Constructive discussion &
criticism welcomed.

Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{ARPA,UUCP}