C is literally a high level language.

Seriously, in the discussion happening in this thread C is clearly not a high-level language in context.

I get your statement and even agree with it in certain contexts. But in a discussion where high-level languages are presumed (in context) to not have memory management, looping constructs are defined over a semantics inferred range of some given types, overloading of functions (maybe even operators), algebraic datatypes, and other functional language mixins: C most certainly IS NOT a high level language.

This is pedantic to the point of being derailing and in some ways seemed geared to end the discussion occurring by sticking a bar in the conversations spokes.

glad you bring up context in this note. i find C high level too but u are right, in a comparisson you can still say its really low level.

C was coined originally as high level because the alternatives were things like assembler. a term rooted in comparisson more than anything.

Thanks, my parent’s comment is almost a thought-terminating cliche in this kind of discussion. However, Chisnall’s now classic ‘C is not a low level language’ article is one of my favorite papers on language theory and potential hardware design. A discussion about the shortcomings of viewing C as a low level language can/could be profitable, deep, and interesting; but context is king.

It has autofree and drop traits.