Well, I'm no expert in compiler design, and for the men who are, the phrase 'higher level programming language' applies to C and basically everything else outside of assembler or actual machine code.
You're making what is a mistake atp of just lumping everything into black and white. 'Very savvy coders' can probably implement a 'better' generic programming implementation than say, C++ template meta-programming by hand-writing assembler, but that would come with a few trade-offs;
-1. It would only be for a specific example, whereas the high-level meta-programming approach is fully generic.
-2. It would require months of the developers concentrated effort to produce a more performant version than say, GCC right out of the box.
-3. It would only work on a specific type of CPU, for example Intel or ARM.
-4. It would be a bitch to maintain that code after the fact (IMO).
So yea higher-level languages like C++ are certainly 'better' than low-level languages in that case.
Further, I'll presume the question is related to the common perception of 'higher-level' and please define that explicitly w/o using 'well, kinda like Haskell, you know' heh
. While there are literally millions of professionals programming in C++ daily for a living, most amateurs consider it some a small niche thing (and therefore automatically both difficult and not worth learning).
Python certainly has more popularity and is considered higher-level. Examples of it's use abound in the sciences. But you certainly wouldn't write a 120fps FPS using it. In engineering, everything is a trade-off, and there's no free lunch--only elegant and inelegant approaches.
I use Python and C++ specifically because of OP's topic ITT: What programming language would suit us and our [robo]waifus best?
Message too long. Click
to view full text.