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=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 2 Oct 92 10:42:50 GMT
From: mcsun!sunic!lth.se!newsuser@uunet.uu.net  (Dag Bruck)
Subject: Re: INFO-ADA Digest V92 #299
Message-ID: <1992Oct2.104250.21814@lth.se>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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?