I think Peter Naur's description of levels of computation is a better one for considering an actual layering of levels of abstraction:
> Each level is associated with a certain set of operations and with a programming language that allows us to write or otherwise express programs that call these operations into action. In any particular use of the computer, programs from all levels are executed simultaneously. In fact, the levels support each other. In order to execute one operation of a given level, several operations at the next lower level will normally have to execute. Each of these operations will in their turn call several operations at the still lower level into execution.
The old term "problem-oriented languages" seems to still be quite useful. Programming languages are always focused on allowing the programmer to solve a set of problems and their features hide irrelevant details.
These language sets seem like a helpful grouping of features that suit particular problem domains but I don't think it works as a taxonomy of levels of abstraction.
> Each level is associated with a certain set of operations and with a programming language that allows us to write or otherwise express programs that call these operations into action. In any particular use of the computer, programs from all levels are executed simultaneously. In fact, the levels support each other. In order to execute one operation of a given level, several operations at the next lower level will normally have to execute. Each of these operations will in their turn call several operations at the still lower level into execution.
The old term "problem-oriented languages" seems to still be quite useful. Programming languages are always focused on allowing the programmer to solve a set of problems and their features hide irrelevant details.
These language sets seem like a helpful grouping of features that suit particular problem domains but I don't think it works as a taxonomy of levels of abstraction.