Philosophical musings: interpreting models
15 Sep 1999 11:40:36 +0200
>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Little <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Jim> Sorry for the delayed reply -- I was gone over the weekend.
Jim> email@example.com wrote:
>> I don't understand Jim's insistence. Jim, why is Lisp low-level?
Jim> Although I already addressed this in my response to Laurent,
Jim> I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about my definitions
Jim> of low and high level:
Jim> To me, the "level" of a language or library is directly related
Jim> to what kind of task you're trying to accomplish. The language
Jim> or library is high-level if it allows you to accomplish your
Jim> task directly, without having to specify any intermediate
Jim> tasks. The language or library is low-level if it requires you
Jim> to accomplish your task by specifying intermediate tasks,
Jim> rather than the task itself.
Jim> Here's an example of a high-level language. The task is to
Jim> dial a phone. dial 555-1212.
That's exactly what you'd do in lisp, provided you have defined
`dial'. To me Lisp is about building higher level function with lower