Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go

Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by pjmlp on Monday December 22, 2025 @05:31AM (#46352954)

All are high level as long as they don't expose CPU capabilities, even ISO C is high level, unless we count in language extensions that are compiler specific, and any language can have compiler extensions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by 9rx on Monday December 22, 2025 @03:28PM (#46358650)

C pointers expose CPU capabilities.

You can always emulate functionality on different architectures, though, so where is the practical line even drawn?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by pjmlp on Monday December 22, 2025 @03:40PM (#46358775)

C pointers are nothing special, plenty of languages expose pointers, even classical BASIC with PEEK and POKE.

The line is blurred, and doesn't help that some folks help spread the urban myth C is special somehow, only because they never bother with either the history of programming language, and specially the history of systems programming outside Bell Labs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by 9rx on Monday December 22, 2025 @03:46PM (#46358851)

They're nothing special, but were designed for a particular CPU and expose the details of that CPU. And since we were talking about C specifically, not a bunch of other random languages that may have did similar things...

While most modern CPUs are designed for C, if your CPU is of a different design, you have to emulate the behaviour. Which works perfectly fine — but the question remains outstanding: Where does the practical line get drawn? Is 6502 assembler actually a high-level language too? After all, you too can treat it as an abstract machine and emulate its function on any other CPU just the same as you do with C pointers.

[ Parent | on HN ]