George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Dec 4, 11:07 am, Paul Rudin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> George Sakkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Even more amazing is the rate C++ is losing ground: >> >http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe_index/C__.html >> >> I don't really find surprising that low level languages lose ground at >> the expense of higher level ones. The developer-time/run-time >> trade-off tends to move in favour of higher level languages as >> hardware gets faster and cheaper. > > Well we Python folks are spoiled but for most people C++ counts as a > high level language (hell, some consider even C high level).
I guess it's all relative. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?HighLevelLanguage includes the words: The term "High Level Language" was originally used to distinguish things like FortranLanguage from things like assembly language. Therefore, originally "high level language" very much included Fortran, Basic, COBOL, Snobol, PL/I, and a little later, C. Observing that such languages are not very high level compared with e.g. Prolog, YACC, Lex, ML, Haskell, etc, some people started calling the older high level languages "low level languages", or qualifying them as "higher level languages", etc. > more interested though how well do these numbers correlate with actual > penetration (new projects, job openings, etc.) I dunno, but I'm pretty sure that the number of Python jobs has increased. I don't think it's just about the "level" of the language tho', e.g. in some ways the language (Common) Lisp is at least as "high level" as the language Python and has certainly been around longer. But the former lacks the same range of standard libraries for actually getting stuff done and lacks a de facto standard implementation. (I'm not trying to start a Lisp vs. Python flame war here.) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
