[erlang-questions] OT: Please highlight me about JAVA C++ as high level languages just like erlang.

Attila Rajmund Nohl <>
Thu Jan 21 16:38:18 CET 2010


I think there's no such thing as "better language". There is a "more
feasible language for a certain task", but generally no language is
better than the other.

2010/1/21, Angel <>:
>
> So im really displeased to see everyone still closely tied to the "old
> classic
> high level definition". its dificult to place erlang over a plethora of not
> certainly better languages if all of them are considered equal.
>
> As Paul rants i think the long lisp reluctance is mainly based on such a
> missconception about language expresivennes provided that all being equal
> level so the more C'ish the better.
>
> /Angel
> On Jueves, 21 de Enero de 2010 14:19:08 Attila Rajmund Nohl escribió:
>> 2010/1/21, Angel J. Alvarez Miguel <>:
>> [...]
>>
>> > Can be Java High level on the same category as C (pointers, arrays), no
>> > closures, bad generics, even no OOP with mehods calls as messages also
>> > like C++?
>>
>> In my experience everything other than the assembler is considered to
>> be a "high level" language. This is probably a couple of decades old
>> definition of high level language, created at a time when FORTRAN,
>> COBOL and Lisp were the high level languages.
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
>> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org
>>
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list. See http://www.erlang.org/faq.html
> erlang-questions (at) erlang.org
>
>


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list