Why is JavaScript sometimes viewed as a low level language?

Question

Inspired by this question.

I commonly see people referring to JavaScript as a low level language, especially among users of GWT and similar toolkits.

My question is: why? If you use one of those toolkits, you're cutting yourself from some of the features that make JavaScript so nice to program in: functions as objects, dynamic typing, etc. Especially when combined with one of the popular frameworks such as jQuery or Prototype.

It's like calling C++ low level because the standard library is smaller than the Java API. I'm not a C++ programmer, but I highly doubt every C++ programmer writes their own GUI and networking libraries.

Answer 1

It is a high-level language, given its flexibility (functions as objects, etc.)

But anything that is commonly compiled-to can be considered a low-level language simply because it's a target for compilation, and there are many languages that can now be compiled to JS because of its unique role as the browser's DOM-controlling language.

Among the languages (or subsets of them) that can be compiled to JS:

• Java
• C#
• Haxe
• Objective-J
• Ruby
• Python

Answer 2

Answering a question that says "why is something sometimes called X..." with "it's not X" is completely side stepping the question, isn't it?

To many people, "low-level" and "high-level" are flexible, abstract ideas that apply differently when working with different systems. To people that are not all hung up on the past (there is no such thing as a modern low-level language to some people) the high-ness or low-ness of a language will commonly refer to how close to the target machine it is. This includes virtual machines, of which a browser is now days. Sorry to all the guys who pine for asm on base hardware.

When you look at the browser as a virtual machine, javascript is as close to the (fake) hardware as you get. That is the viewpoint that many who call javascript "low-level" have. I think it's a pointless distinction to make and people shouldn't get hung up on what is low and what is high.

Answer 3

"Low" here has the same meaning as in the sentences "The number of casualties suffered in the first world war was low," and "Reduced-fat ice cream is low in calories." It makes sense when there's an obvious point of comparison, but out of context, it is simply absurd.

Answer 4

A lot of people say this because the objects and structures provided in JavaScript are about as simple as you can get. To develop any sort of real functionality, you have to use an external library. Low level is a bad way to put this, because it already has a meaning in computer science. A better way to say it may be that it's without built-in libraries.

Compare this with Java, where the actual language really doesn't do a whole lot. Trying making an array without an ArrayList, or access the file system without the IO libraries. Most languages are more than just the basics, they come with this extra functionality.

With JavaScript, the only real power we get comes from the APIs that are introduced by the browsers and aren't part of the language. Things like DOM manipulation and Ajax are supplied by the browser.

It may be better to summarize all of this by saying that with a language like Java, you can get started doing some serious work without having to download third-party libraries, but with JavaScript, you either have to download a library or write a library of your own.

Answer 5

I don't view javascript as a low level language. A lot of functionality and user experience boosters are provided by it. Maybe others may view it as such simply because users can turn it off in their browser options, but it's a hugely robust language that virtually runs the web on virtually all types of browsers...

Answer 6

It's not, it may be as low-level as you can get in normal browser programming, but its on par with functional languages like Scheme or Python.

I think the great lacks of Javascript are lack of name spaces or packaging and no threads

Answer 7

It's low-level compared to the GWT and similar toolkits, but it's not a low-level language in the larger scheme of things. The features it offers are very high-level: closures, dynamic typing, and prototypical inheritance are just a few examples of its high-level features.

Answer 8

It's considered to be low level by a number of people who prefer writing java to generate javascript then writing javascript(ie they dislike it fairly or unfairly). A lot of people complain about java these days but despite the lack of static type checking most people would probably consider ruby and python easier to write in most cases (java being a fairly simple static language-which are much harder to design well without large built-in feature sets then a simple dynamic language).

Few people would call python or ruby low level compared to java and if people were forced to target a python or ruby vm its hard to imagine that a java to python/ruby compiler would become as popular as gwt.

In closing javascript has an image problem(people sometimes think of languages as getting more difficult as they become more low level and vice versa).