Elysian Shadows

Kros wrote:

deryni21 wrote:also what is a lower level then c/++?

Assembly and Binary.

Binary isn't a programming language, it's a base-2 number system.

I think he meant straight out machine code instead of "binary."

"High level" and "low level" refer to levels of abstraction. "Low level" is closer to hardware, "high level" is farther away from the hardware. Hardware is as low level as you can get.

For instance,
"I speak English" is high level
"I speak an American derivative language that has nouns, verbs, prepositions, shares a similar name with the country of England, and can be pretty ambiguous, and has slang such as 'whassup'." is low level
Might be a high level and low level description of (American) English.

Which is more descriptive? The low level one.
Which is easier, but may be more ambiguous (which dialect of English)? The high level one.

MarauderIIC wrote:I think he meant straight out machine code instead of "binary."

"High level" and "low level" refer to levels of abstraction. "Low level" is closer to hardware, "high level" is farther away from the hardware. Hardware is as low level as you can get.

For instance,
"I speak English" is high level
"I speak an American derivative language that has nouns, verbs, prepositions, shares a similar name with the country of England, and can be pretty ambiguous, and has slang such as 'whassup'." is low level
Might be a high level and low level description of (American) English.

Which is more descriptive? The low level one.
Which is easier, but may be more ambiguous (which dialect of English)? The high level one.

thank you thats much more clear.

GyroVorbis wrote:

deryni21 wrote:now with "lower level" that would imply its not as good.

Hell no. You just defined lower level:

deryni21 wrote:a lower level language has more capability but is harder to use while a higher level language is easier to use but doesn't have the same capability.

Does that sound shittier to you?

C/++ is way harder than something like a scripting language, but is way more powerful.

deryni21 wrote:also what is a lower level then c/++?

GyroVorbis wrote:No, compared to just about anything but assembly languages, C/++ would be considered "low level."

first off i was saying that low level would imply a low level of power i didn't know it was abstract and i wasnt saying that c/++ was worse you took that out of context the next part stated "I know thats not true" also assembly language didn't mean a whole lot to me so asking for an example wasn't such a bad thing to do was it? also i was pointing out that it seemed backwards once again i didn't know what it was refering to so i was making an observation. felt i should defend myself....

MarauderIIC wrote:I think he meant straight out machine code instead of "binary."

Yep. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

deryni21 wrote:first off i was saying that low level would imply a low level of power

Neat. I was just saying that you were wrong. No need to get defensive.

Why would it imply a lower level of power when you clearly understood what the trade off between a low and high level language was? You contradicted yourself hardcore, that's the only reason that I even said anything.

GyroVorbis wrote:

deryni21 wrote:first off i was saying that low level would imply a low level of power

Neat. I was just saying that you were wrong. No need to get defensive.

Why would it imply a lower level of power when you clearly understood what the trade off between a low and high level language was? You contradicted yourself hardcore, that's the only reason that I even said anything.

thats not true i was taking waht he told me and comparing and im being defensive because you took everything out of context instead of actually looking at what i said

What? Do you reread what you type?

deryni21 wrote:now with "lower level" that would imply its not as good. i know that is not true and from gintos description it seems almost backwards? a lower level language has more capability but is harder to use while a higher level language is easier to use but doesn't have the same capability.

You weren't making a comparison there, you were genuinely confused.

Not only that, but if you were making a comparison, then I am genuinely confused. It's either 1 of 2 scenarios, and either way, you cannot admit that you were wrong.

1) You were genuinely confused about high/low level languages.
2) You weren't, and you phrased/punctuated everything incorrectly in your post to lead us to the conclusion that you were. You seem to ignore punctuation, it wouldn't be our fault if we got confused by you.

Either way you were wrong with a language. One is english, one is programming.

Now quit being a baby. It's not like anybody here cares. If somebody corrects you when you are wrong, you say thank you and move on. It's called being mature and becoming more intelligent.

GyroVorbis wrote:What? Do you reread what you type?

deryni21 wrote:now with "lower level" that would imply its not as good. i know that is not true and from gintos description it seems almost backwards? a lower level language has more capability but is harder to use while a higher level language is easier to use but doesn't have the same capability.

You weren't making a comparison there, you were genuinely confused.

Not only that, but if you were making a comparison, then I am genuinely confused. It's either 1 of 2 scenarios, and either way, you cannot admit that you were wrong.

1) You were genuinely confused about high/low level languages.
2) You weren't, and you phrased/punctuated everything incorrectly in your post to lead us to the conclusion that you were. You seem to ignore punctuation, it wouldn't be our fault if we got confused by you.

Either way you were wrong with a language. One is english, one is programming.

Now quit being a baby. It's not like anybody here cares. If somebody corrects you when you are wrong, you say thank you and move on. It's called being mature and becoming more intelligent.

being intelligent and mature would of lead you to maru's answer which gave me all the information i needed to clear it up. I was just asking a question and stating my thoughts for whatever reason that gave you premise to assault me i guess whatever i'm done.

Which is exactly what I told you, which is exactly what you had originally said. But it's okay, you go be a little bitch and cry, because you were wrong, and you didn't like being corrected. The funny thing is that you had it right and confused yourself.

I won't waste my time helping you (or trying to decipher your poorly constructed sentences) again.

I think what he meant was that you would expect higher level to be more powerful than lower level, and not the other way around. He wasn't confuesed, he was just making an observation.

That might be what he meant. Too bad his English and grammar were so horrible that nobody can say with certainty that what you say is the truth. It's nobody's fault but his own, and he has no right to be a bitch about it.

edit: and you can't observe that a higher level language would be more powerful than a lower level, because that's completely wrong. That isn't an observation, that's a hypothesis--an incorrect hypothesis based on nothing but "higher" meaning better than "lower."

Misunderstanding, just relax and be done with it.

GyroVorbis wrote:That might be what he meant. Too bad his English and grammar were so horrible that nobody can say with certainty that what you say is the truth. It's nobody's fault but his own, and he has no right to be a bitch about it.

edit: and you can't observe that a higher level language would be more powerful than a lower level, because that's completely wrong. That isn't an observation, that's a hypothesis--an incorrect hypothesis based on nothing but "higher" meaning better than "lower."

Yeah I wasn't sure either.... It really didn't make that much sense... It was kinda like are you saying that low level is bad... well what makes any type of language bad, or are you confused on high and low level languages... It actually confused me to some extent....