Jump to content

Talk:Fourth-generation programming language

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sigmundur (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 21 November 2016 (→WTF). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice


Archives (Index)

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 [1].

I propose we remove PL/SQL from this list.

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

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL/SQL

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)[reply]

Uh, I agree with the BS part, though it really seems these "4gl" are just DSL for statistical processing or SAP or, you know, domain-specific stuff like that. It seems almost as if being a real programming language with generic applicability is mutually exclusive with being "4gl". The whole 4gl concept seems like overly vague BS. It's simply too early to tell, history hasn't been played out yet. --Sigmundur (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fourth-generation programming language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fourth-generation_programming_language&oldid=750695731"