Talk:High-level programming language

needs cleaned up

How to mark it? But it says C "was", "might be", and then "is" a high-level language. Also, PHP isn't high-level? Really? It's interpreted, reflexive, and (somewhat) Obj-oriented. If this page is really going to say it "isn't" high-level, it needs to explain *why* (not just "it's a web language"). HTML is a markup language -- neither high nor low, because it's not a programming language. It's a document, not a program. PHP, while often used for scripts, can be used to write programs performing functions just like those of a command-line C program (but with less code). So how is PHP *not* high-level?

Well, I just removed that section, because there was little of merit in it. — mæstro ^t/c, 11:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

High-level programming is slightly *Wrong*?

Not sure I am interpreting this correctly. Could someone clarify?

well to be honest it is not really possible for high-level programming to be "gay." is it?

This page is wrong on so many levels. Are C and C++ really defined as High Level Languages? Sure, high level compared to machine code, but compared to Haskell, Erlang or Python? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.192.80 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The accepted definition of "High Level" includes all Programming Languages as we know. The limit is set at the point where is no direct translation to machine code, such as in Assembly Language (probably the unique category of "Low Level" language). "High Level" is a, now obsolete, term to indicate that you are not bounded by the concrete machine definided by you computer but rather by an abstract machine defined by your language, which is usually much more complex, even if this language is simply Fortran 0, Plankalkul or COBOL.

1. Terrence W. Pratt, Programming Languages - Design and Implementation (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981).

1. Michael L. Scott, Programming Language Pragmatics, Third Edition, 3rd ed. (Morgan Kaufmann, 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xexeo (talk • contribs) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Machine code?

Anyone know how this works with machine code? Becuase I can't figure out how each instruction in high-level language corresponds to one instruction in machine code. Any one help me out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.232.146 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Most higher level languages compile to assembly. The compiler interprets the high level code into assembly. However, the penalty arises from the fact that you're relying 100% on the compiler for how well it does the interpreting and optimizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarrod1937 (talk • contribs)

I think compilers generate machine code; not assembly. But, machine code can be disassembled to something approaching one-to-one mapping from machine code instruction to assembly instruction. In some sense assembly is an alternate way to view machine code yet the two are not exactly equivalent.Stevebroshar (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

How what works? A high-level language does not correspond to machine code as one instruction per source code line. Why would you think it does? Is that something that the article used to say? Stevebroshar (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Isn't an intermediate compiler the same as a translator?

I don't understand how an intermediate compiler isn't just translating to bytecode. Since my area of expertise is much higher than this, I don't think boldness is appropriate for me. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

An intermediate compiler is a compiler or a part of a compiler that generates an intermediate format based on the source code. That format could be bytecode or could be some other format. Does that answer your question? Stevebroshar (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Major Misconception

Interpreters and compilers are programs that process programming languages. Languages are not "interpreted" languages or "compiled" languages. Rather, language implementations use interpretation or compilation. For example, Algol 60 and Fortran have both been interpreted (even though they were more typically compiled). Similarly, Scheme has been compiled (even though it has been interpreted in most popular implementations. Java shows the difficulty of trying to apply these labels to languages rather than to implementations; Java is compiled to bytecode and the bytecode is subsequently executed by either interpretation (in a JVM) or compilation (typically with a just-in-time compiler such as HotSpot, again in a JVM). --Kdcooper (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, C# and Visual Basic.Net are compiled to MSIL then just-in-time compiled to native machine code at the time of execution (this is a different strategy than Java as tn incurs longer loading times to get the benefit of faster execution). User:Hoshantm

In my opinion youre very wrong. High level is much more compLEX. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.115.153 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree that languages should not be categorized as interpreted or compiled. A language does not dictate the runtime environment. Any language can be compiled or processed with an interpreter. Even if a compiler or an interpreter does not exist for a particular language does not mean that it can't exist or won't exist some day. Stevebroshar (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Garbled second sentence in opening para

The phrase or be from the specification of the program seemed to be either missing a word/words to give it clarity or an accidental copy and paste from the Low-level programming language page, which contains the identical phrase in a much clearer context. I have supplied an alternative characteristic of high-level languages. If you are the original author and know what you meant, please do revert the change but please also with greater clarity. User:itsbruce —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS ARE COMPLETE AND UTTER BOLLOCKS

Many programmers today might refer to C as low-level, as it lacks a large runtime-system (no garbage collection, etc.), basically supports only scalar operations, and provides direct memory addressing. It, therefore, readily blends with assembly language and the machine level of CPUs and microcontrollers.

Assembly language may itself be regarded as a higher level (but often still one-to-one if used without macros) representation of machine code, as it supports concepts such as constants and (limited) expressions, sometimes even variables, procedures, and data structures. Machine code, in its turn, is inherently at a slightly higher level than the microcode or micro-operations used internally in many processors.Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.25.224 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Complaining that content is bullocks is not helpful. What exactly is the issue? What is the solution? Stevebroshar (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Need help editing

I added a section at the end of the introduction that gives examples of high-level languages that I happen to know, but I think that a more scholarly and complete treatment for this page would be to include a complete list of high-level programming languages. Can anyone with expertise help with this? Daniellevitin (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There are zillions of high-level languages; too many to list in this article. There are articles that list languages. This article should not list languages. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This page is a mess

This page has degenerated badly over the past two years and needs a major edit. Too miuch etail has been added to the introduction when it would be better explored in the main article, for one thing. People have also been adding details about their own pet languages which are not relevant here. The whole Eiffel section should be replaced by a concise reference or just removed entirely, for example. Itsbruce (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. Did you fix it? Stevebroshar (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

High level != simple, easy

Quotes from article: "making the process of developing a program simpler and more understandable relative to a lower-level language"

High-level doesn't mean simple and understandable, as anyone who have looked at Haskell or J can testify. Here's a line of J code: quicksort=: (($:@(<#[), (=#[), $:@(>#[)) ({~ ?@#)) ^: (1<#)

High level refers to the degree of abstraction from computer hardware.

The intentions of those abstractions are often to improve "expressiveness", not make things "simpler". When a programming language is more expressive, it means an idea can be implemented in a shorter program.

--81.191.75.7 (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on High-level programming language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217154926/http://lispnyc.org/meeting-assets/2007-02-13_pinku/SuranaThesis.pdf to ftp://lispnyc.org/meeting-assets/2007-02-13_pinku/SuranaThesis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

High or low?

The author of the edit vandalizes pages, so the edit is probably wrong [1].Xx236 (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Stevebroshar (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Linguistics in the Digital Age

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fry3drice (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Acd3698 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

High-level language computer architecture

The text in § High-level language computer architecture fails to distinguish between architectures designed to be convenient targets of compilers, as defined in high-level language computer architecture, and architectures that actually parse the source code. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between a HLLCA computer that is designed to be convenient target of compilers and any ol' computer with a compiler? I don't see a difference. ... Further, seems that designed to be convenient target of compilers is an operating system thing; which I don't think qualifies as a computer architecture (which seems like hardware) ... Regardless I don't think an article on HLL needs to get into the weeds of what HLLCA means. ... FYI, Before seeing this comment, I moved that section under execution modes as a list item. IMO made no sense to be organized as a section when other modes are in a list. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Merge

IMO the articles on high (this one), low and very high level programming language should be merged into one article. The very-high guy is overly short and the others are not too long to make a reasonable sized article. But the main reason to merge them is that it's really just one topic. High and low are relative so it makes sense to discuss them together rather than separately.

But, as with some topics, the name is hard. Calling it something like high and low level programming languages is lame. 1) usually a name with 'and' seems lame, 2) it doesn't include 'very-high' and 3) it just seem to miss the point. I propose Abstraction (programming language) since that's what this is about: abstraction in a programming language. It's just odd that the terms we use regularly (i.e. high/low-level programming language) don't include 'abstraction' even thought that's what it's about. Of course, the existing articles would direct to this new article. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2025 (UTC)