A really bad idea.

[Manuel M. Garcia]

On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:25:32 -0800, "James J. Besemer"
<jb at cascade-sys.com> wrote:
(edit)
>In any case, I agree Pocket reference guides are at best a poor metric for 
>comparing language complexity.   I only mentioned the others because Mr. 
>Garcia cited it as evidence that Python is "small" and I offered what were 
>intended to be seen as counter examples.

I own a laminated foldout cheatsheet for Perl that is six pages long.
Obviously it is not the only reference I use for Perl.  I mention the
Python Pocket Reference because its 124 4"x7" pages gets me farther
with productivity than 248 or 372 pages of documentation in other
languages I use.
I suppose a Forth manual could be written on an index card with a
crayon.  I will plead that the metric I should used was the ratio of
daily referenced documentation versus productivity in varied
programming tasks.  Python's ratio is pretty darn good, the best I
have found.

Manuel