From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 1 Oct 92 15:51:59 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!brt.deakin.edu.au!dougcc@uun
et.uu.net  (Douglas Miller)
Subject: Re: INFO-ADA Digest V92 #299
Message-ID: <1992Oct1.105159.8145@brt.deakin.edu.au>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <2AAE10C8@ncgate.ccscnet.af.mil>,
BUSHMAN@MITECMAIL.CCSCNET.AF.MIL writes:

> As I stated
> in the last paragraph, Ada is a very large language.  For someone wanting to
> get some programming experience, as your first language to tackle, Ada would
> be much harder to learn than others, such as COBOL.  

This sounds like nonsense to me.  You are surely better off starting with
a modern language first, rather than unlearning the skills of an obsolete
one later.

This kind of objection to Ada was criticised by Jean Ichbiah who compared
it to examining the engineering blueprints for a new auditorium, and then
saying "this building is much too complex, people will never be able to
find their way into the foyer".

> When learning how to
> swim, do you start by jumping in the middle of the lake and hope you survive
> to the shore?  Probably not.  And the same holds true for programming.  Start
> with the basics and then move on to bigger and better things

This seems to be sound advice.

>  (like Ada, if you find you like programming).

If the end objective is to learn Ada, then start with Ada --- just start with
the basic features, then move on to more advanced ones later.  Learning
COBOL as an introduction to Ada would be a futile exercise.