Talk:Uniface (programming language)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Peacocks, weasels, and other fauna

Much of this article still reads like a marketing brochure, perhaps because of the large addition in 2010 which, per its own edit summary, “has come from the team who develop Uniface”. Regardless of exactly which edit contributed which sentence, the current version contains a lot of cheerleading text, starting with the introduction:

Uniface can be used in complex systems that maintain critical enterprise data supporting vital business processes [emphasis mine]

or

integrate with all major DBMS products

where I suspect the vague term “major” is a variable of convenience defined to be whatever makes that claim true. Later, after stating that

The components … are compiled into runtime objects that can be packaged into zip files and deployed onto any platform. The runtime objects are executed using a virtual machine and a platform-specific interpreter

the claim is made that

Java and other languages later followed Uniface in this respect.

Is my viewpoint just skewed, or does that imply that the developers of Java used Uniface as their example? In fact, p-code machines have been used since the 1970s (or even 1966, if one counts O-code), and it was UCSD Pascal which was the model for Java, at least according to James Gosling (here, BTW). As for “other languages”, that's too vague to verify.

Note that, other than the inaccurate claim about Java, it's not clear that the glowing prose about Uniface is all wrong, but it is biased. The article would benefit from a comprehensive review by an editor who understands the product.

50.181.30.121 (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]