Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!mintaka!ogicse!emory!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Evaluating Programming Languages
Message-ID: <7882@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 90 02:11:55 GMT
References: <3069@caesar.cs.montana.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Distribution: usa
Lines: 18

From icsu8209@caesar.cs.montana.edu (Glassy):
> large languages which seem difficult to use because of
>   3) sheer humungousness (Ada).

   You want a BIG language?  Try COBOL with its 500 or so keywords;
   Ada only has 63.

   By the way, studies have shown (CACM, I forget the exact issue)
   that there is practically nothing that can be directly trimmed
   from Ada 83 without fundamentally weakening its capabilities.

   However, there will probably be a consolidation of the concepts
   of package and task into the single concept of an object, either
   in this revision (Ada 9X) or the next.


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu