Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 24.80.96.229 - "→Interpreted languages: " |
|||
Line 159:
The classification of languages as 'high level' or 'low level' is almost never useful. This article is another example where it adds nothing except confusion. [[User:150.101.166.15|150.101.166.15]] 08:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
:Yes it's really confusing, and it's wrong too. "With high-level languages, when program source code is compiled, information about the structure of the program is normally lost when low-level code (typically machine language code) is produced, unless, of course, the code is compiled into an Intermediate Language (IL)...". Who told that? Normally, every compiler retains the information about the types of the target code for debugging purposes, so actually, every compiler has a way to save that info, it's not a novelty of IL-languages and there is no reason for IL-languages to retain more info than non-IL ones. Of course, Java and C# do retain that info in the IL, but because they are reflective languages, it's a conseguence of language design, not IL use. I've deleted that statement - AngeloPesce
| |||