In article <KANZE.93Aug5143137@slsvhdt.us-es.sel.de> kanze@us-es.sel.de (James Kanze) writes:
>In article <1993Jul31.154737.25392@ucc.su.OZ.AU>
>maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) writes:
>
>|>  Why are languages like COBOL, Pascal, Modula etc
>|> considered simple? Because the type system is simple,
>|> consistent, and orthogonal. (As are the scope rules)
>
>I didn't know that COBOL was considered simple:-).

It isn't.  Indeed the COBOL '85 standard (did I get that right?) is about
two inches thick.

I expect that the C++ standard will be about the same thickness when it's
actually done... and I'm not talking about when it goes out for public
review.  It'll probably only be about an inch thick by then.)

--

-- Ronald F. Guilmette ------------------------------------------------------
------ domain address: rfg@netcom.com ---------------------------------------
------ uucp address: ...!uunet!netcom.com!rfg -------------------------------