Talk:Fourth-generation programming language

Archives (Index)

2013 2015 2016

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

PL/SQL is not a 4GL

PL/SQL is a *procedural* language which borrows most of its syntax from Ada (and similar languages like Pascal and Modula-2). Wikipedia itself says so .

I propose we remove PL/SQL from this list.

Colin 't Hart (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

References

WTF

"A quantitative definition of 4GL has been set by Capers Jones, as part of his work on function point analysis. Jones defines the various generations of programming languages in terms of developer productivity, measured in function points per staff-month. A 4GL is defined as a language that supports 12–20 function points per staff month. This correlates with about 16–27 lines of code per function point implemented in a 4GL."

WTF am I reading? People get points for writing code now? 4GL allows you to get more points? Why is this a computer science article, please move to the pseudoscience or enterprise programming section.

"Fourth-generation languages have often been compared to domain-specific programming languages (DSLs). [[[!!!WTF???Some researchers state that 4GLs are a subset of DSLs.???WTF!!!]]]"

Bullshit.

Yes, I know, and I agree with you. Both the references to support that statement about 4GLs being a subset of DSLs are dead. I removed the preceding sentence too, as it really doesn't make any sense. The section about Capers Jones and his points per staff-month was removed also.--FeralOink (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

what are the types of 4GL's?

help me out!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.67.188 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite the initial section and provide better examples

Rewrite the initial section and provide better examples

I would like to rewrite the initial section to be more accurate. Although some 4GLs did not meet expectations, others greatly surpassed 4GL objectives. The one example cited states an 8 fold performance improvement. Our projects achieved a consistent 10 fold performance improvement.

In addition, large scale high expose applications were build in 4GL languages. To my knowledge, the world's first all 4GL (no COBOL or any other language) large-scale application was developed in 1986 (An application all of you know and have used) and revolutionized application development. Variations of that same team went on to develop other highly successful applications which would rival virtually any application since in terms of development timeframes, robustness of the application, and ease of operations.

For reasons I have never understood, 4GLs have received little recognition despite being one of the greatest technology gains in the past 40 years.

Tonyboston (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC) AJ

I've been WP:BOLD and rewrote the lede as requested, also to address the issues listed atop the article. I didn't salvage much from the previous, as I found all lede paragraphs but the last questionable and with cite-needed. I preserved the one cite, but don't have any new ones to add; instead, I just borrowed from the rest of the page, which is what the lede is supposed to do anyway. But I did have to get "creative" with some of this; some more attention will be needed.

Please review my rewrite of the lede, comment here, or just improve as you see fit. And there's always WP:BRD if needed.

(To answer Tony's question above on lack of recognition, it seems 4GL has more or less become a meaningless term. I think 4GL got over-hyped and misused by people promoting their "new" 3GLs as 4GLs, plus some "pure" 4GLs were published before they were ready to compete with established general-purpose 3GLs, and were seen as failures (even though most computer languages have failed). Most 4GL ideas can now be found in 3GLs.) --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

After nearly a year without further comment or notable edits of my rewrite, I'm removing the unclear and technical tags. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)