| > I believe that no programming language with automatic memory management can be considered "low-level". That's a view of a whole language and its implementation. Still it may have a range of features which are low level. Lisp for example has Foreign Function Interfaces (FFI) with low-level interfaces and manual memory management. Example:
http://www.sbcl.org/manual/#Foreign-Function-Interface Basic Lisp stuff like CAR and CDR were (almost) instructions on a CPU ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAR_and_CDR ). Something like a cons cell (the building block for lists) is basically a two-element vector. Lists were made by chaining them together via a CONS operator, which creates such a two-element vector. Such a linked list data structure is pretty low-level and the typical mark&sweep GC of the early days is also relatively basic. There is not much magic to it. Many other programming languages have much more complex basic data structures (see object-oriented programming in Java with classes and instances, inheritance, interfaces, namespaces, ...). Compared to that the basic linked list in Lisp is primitive. > I believe that no programming language with automatic memory management can be considered "low-level". See the standards for Scheme or Common Lisp. There is not a word about automatic memory management in the specifications. Automatic memory management is a feature of an implementation, just like foreign function interfaces. Most implementations have a kind of garbage collector. But most implementations also have manual memory management. People even write operating systems in Lisp sometimes: https://github.com/froggey/Mezzano |