From: mcsun!sunic!lth.se!newsuser@uunet.uu.net (Dag Bruck)
Subject: Re: INFO-ADA Digest V92 #299
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:42:50 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.104250.21814@lth.se> (raw)
In <comp.lang.ada> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>Let's keep a sense of perspective here:
> Ada is smaller than COBOL.
> Ada is smaller than C++.
> Ada is smaller than Common Lisp (wow, the draft is _incredibly_ large)
> Ada is larger than C.
> Ada is larger than Pascal.
> Ada is larger than Scheme.
Excellent advice. How do you measure size?
>.... What counts is
>not "how big is the whole language" but "how much do you have to know to
>get stuff done".
Very true. A burden on any programmer regardless of language is to
know what feature not to use for a particular task.
>.... If it comes to that, I am continually surprised by how
>little C many of the C programmers I speak to know, and it's not large.
Do you mean that C is a good language (in some sense) because it is
small to start with and you don't even have to know much of that to
get useful work done?
next reply other threads:[~1992-10-02 10:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1992-10-02 10:42 Dag Bruck [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1992-10-07 3:07 INFO-ADA Digest V92 #299 Richard A. O'Keefe
1992-10-02 7:56 Richard A. O'Keefe
1992-10-01 15:51 munnari.oz.au!ariel!ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au!brt.deakin.edu.au!dougcc
1992-09-09 14:57 BUSHMAN
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox