Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Top 10 most common hard skills listed on resumes...
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 18:17:01 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <vafouc$20j4p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vab101$3er$1@reader1.panix.com>
 <vad7ns$1g27b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vad8lr$1fv5u$1@dont-email.me> <vaf7f0$k51$2@reader1.panix.com>
 <vafgb2$1to4v$2@dont-email.me>
 <92ab79736a70ea1563691d22a9b396a20629d8cf@i2pn2.org>
 <vafim7$1ubg8$1@dont-email.me> <20240825191719.00003ec3@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2024 19:17:01 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7ae2ca0390c672897748fb2aa53bce6d";
	logging-data="2116761"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eMZzvT+ffXmAQikAiDtqM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LCsPW4Fc2tw+u+xZbd32XJpIF0s=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <20240825191719.00003ec3@yahoo.com>
Bytes: 3543

On 25/08/2024 17:17, Michael S wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 16:30:17 +0100
> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 25/08/2024 15:55, fir wrote:
>>> James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/24 08:18, John Forkosh wrote:
>>>>> Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> I recall C as originally characterized as a "portable assembly
>>>>> language",
>>>>> as opposed to a "higher level language". And I'd agree with that
>>>>> assessment, whereby I think you're barking up the wrong tree by
>>>>> trying to evaluate its merits/demerits vis-a-vis higher-level
>>>>> languages. Consider it with respect to its own objectives,
>>>>> instead.
>>>>
>>>> C has been mischaracterized as a "portable assembly language", but
>>>> that has never been an accurate characterization. It has, from the
>>>> very beginning, been defined by the behavior that is supposed to
>>>> result from translating and executing the C code, not the assembly
>>>> language that's supposed to be produced by the translation process.
>>>> C is a high level language. It is a very low-level high-level
>>>> language, but it's not in any sense an assembler.
>>>>   
>>>
>>> c is mid level language - i mean it has more sense to call c that
>>> way than call it low level or high level
>>>    
>>
>> So what language goes between Assembly and C?
>>
> 
> Popular today? Not many. In the past? PL/M, BLISS. Although the former
> is at almost the same level as C.
> 
>> There aren't many!
> 
> Because C is seen as good enough.

Because it's seen off most of the competition, partly thanks to the 
dominance of Unix.

Lots of younger people now think that C is what a lower level, systems 
language is supposed to look like.

>> So it's reasonable to consider C as being at the
>> lowest level of HLLs.
>>
>> Putting C at mid-level would make for a very cramped space above it
>> as 99% of languages would have to fit in there.
>>
> 
> Why is it a problem?

It's only a problem if the aim is to classify languages according to 
perceived level say from 1 to 100. Then you don't start by classifying 
one of the lowest level ones as 50.

If plotting such a chart (say level vs. year of introduction), half of 
it would be empty.