Just my opinion, don't mean to be inflammatory, but if the user has to know and manually manage stack vs heap objects, then I wouldn't call it "High Level" language.
In C# it's more relevant to understand semantics (ref/value type) than allocation details (unless you actually care about low level details for performance/interop)
I'd say the fact that structs are stack-allocated, and you can slip right through years of development without even knowing that fact... yeah, it's pretty high-level. C# doesn't have `malloc`. .Net apps are managed, so all of those low-level things one has to/gets to do are abstracted away.
Comments
Just my opinion, don't mean to be inflammatory, but if the user has to know and manually manage stack vs heap objects, then I wouldn't call it "High Level" language.
Then just allocate everything on the stack and use the optional garbage collector: http://libcello.org/learn/garbage-collection
Allocating on the stack doesn't need GC.
No, but it makes it easier (more “high level”) when you don’t need to explicitly deallocate things, ever.
That raises a question, would you call C# a "High Level" language?
In C# it's more relevant to understand semantics (ref/value type) than allocation details (unless you actually care about low level details for performance/interop)
I'd say the fact that structs are stack-allocated, and you can slip right through years of development without even knowing that fact... yeah, it's pretty high-level. C# doesn't have `malloc`. .Net apps are managed, so all of those low-level things one has to/gets to do are abstracted away.