C Low-Level Debate
The cluster centers on debates about whether C is a low-level language, often referencing the article 'C Is Not a Low-level Language' and discussing its abstractions, relation to assembly, and suitability for modern hardware.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
C is not low-level enough for it to be even remotely true.
C is not a "low-level" language.
How about you stop calling "C" a low level language?
There is an article about this. 'C Is Not a Low-level Language'.https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3212479
Ironically C is technically a high level language anyways.
Sorry to break it to you: https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/7/229036-c-is-not-a-lo...
C is one of first high level languages. If someone is not educated well, it is his problem. It's possible to do low-level stuff in C, e.g. by inline assembler, but it does not makes C low level. Low level languages lacks abstractions, i.e. they tied to machine, while high level languages are not.
C is no where near as low level as you can get. C-- is closer. LLVM-IR is even closer. but really, the lowest level you can get is the assembly of the architecture you're running on.at the time of the creation, the general consensus was that C was too high level, that it abstracted away the actual workings of the code.we've been introduced to high level languages that have made us re-evaluate what it means to be low or high level. but make no mistake, C is.. at least mediu
This article states that "C is not a Low-Level Language", not that it is not a thin abstraction over assembly. The arguments in the article could as well be used to make a point that "Assembly is not a Low-Level Language".
I'm not sure C is that much closer to the hardware, nowadays.