Content deleted Content added
→Need newer references: topic drift |
Propietary? |
||
Line 29:
::::I mean that in this reference [http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/papers/lightning/lightning.html], I don't see any relation to VHLL except the ''title'' of the lightning talk track! The talks are all about Lisp/Scheme internals. I was hoping for something meatier, that would help differentiate between a so-called VHLL and a high-level language. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::The ref was added to illustrate modern usage of the term and as a continuation of its 1970s meaning, as per your request. Now you're asking for something somewhat different. That ref is not a public forum discussing the topic or a high-level introduction to the field itself, but addresses specific lower-level issues. By listing talks under the heading of VHLL, that means the topics of those talks are VHLLish, no? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] 18:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
== Propietary? ==
Usually proprietary? To me that means a majority of the time, and by such a margin that encountering the other case would be odd. Without numbers, it's just something some guy said.
Why mention proprietary status at all? It sticks out like a sore thumb when the low-level and high-level articles are about the '''technical''' aspects of how a language is implemented or programs in it are coded. Does Python become lower-level when the updates to the source code are released?
| |||