Which programming languages aren't considered high-level? [closed]

Answer 1

You will find that

many of the truths we cling to depend upon our own point of view.

For a C programmer, Assembler is a low-level language. For a Java programmer, C is a low-level language and so on.

I suspect the folks programming the first stored-program computer with 1s and 0s would have thought Assembler a high-level language. It's all relative.

(Quote from Return of the Jedi)

Answer 2

According to Wikipedia, the low level languages are machine code and assembly.

From the source:

In computer science, a low-level programming language is a programming language that provides little or no abstraction from a computer's instruction set architecture. The word "low" refers to the small or nonexistent amount of abstraction between the language and machine language; because of this, low-level languages are sometimes described as being "close to the hardware."

Then, to answer:

So why does everybody keep mentioning high and low-level languages if assembler is really the only low-level language.

I don't know who "everyone" is, but I would venture a guess that back when high-level languages were not as commonplace as they are today, it was more relevant to talk about low-level vs. high-level (because there was a relatively significant amount of programmers writing assembly code). In modern times it is a less important distinction. Personally, I rarely hear people using these terms except to differentiate between assembly or not (except for those times when you might hear someone raised on Python referring to C or C++ as low-level, but this is not in the spirit of the original definition).