Re: Is Python higher level than Ada?

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>]

On 11/15/2016 11:56 PM, Paul Rubin wrote:
> Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> writes:
>> My question is not about particular features, but about which features
>> are considered in definition of "higher level".
>
> I don't know that "higher level" is a well-defined term.  I think of it
> as meaning the language abstracts away more machine-level details for
> you, letting you think of the problem more naturally.

I had a somewhat different introduction to the concept. Typically, one 
understood a problem and then translated that understanding into a solution 
implemented in a programming language. Ada was the 1st language I experienced in 
which it was possible to model the problem in the language, and that model was 
the solution. The translation step needed with every other language I'd used 
could be eliminated. So that is what I consider "high level".

Essential feature for this to be possible seem to me to include:

1. Modules with separation of interface and implementation

2. The ability to express the constraints of the problem space

3. The ability to model the concurrency present in many problems

Feature 2 means the language can model things like "these values cannot be < 0 
or > 42" and "the light can be one of 3 colors: red, yellow, or blue". McCormick 
ranked this as the most important feature in explaining why his C-fluent 
students could succeed with Ada but not with C.

Python is missing some of these, and so would seem, by this definition, to not 
be a high-level language.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You a big nose have it."
Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
107