NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/database/theory/431

Text File | 1992-08-30 | 1.6 KB | 37 lines

Newsgroups: comp.databases.theory
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!cs.uow.edu.au!cc.uow.edu.au!u9048979
From: [e-mail] (glen eastment)
Subject: Re: What constitutes a 4GL?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University Of Wollongong
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 04:51:02 GMT
Lines: 26

[e-mail] (Andrew Evans) writes:

>At the risk of asking a seemingly trivial question compared to most of
>the other discussion that goes on around here, I'd like an
>authoritative description of what a fourth-generation language really
>is.  In the scope of relational databases, is it simply a programming
>language with a database-oriented syntax?  Or are there more specific
>attributes that a system must have in order to really be a 4GL?
>And who says that this is what a 4GL must be?
>--
>Andrew Evans ([e-mail]) - Infinity Development Systems - Waltham, MA

I've always believed that a 4GL is where the programmer can specify *WHAT*
he/she wants, without having to specify *HOW* to do it. Sadly, many
4GL still don't come close to this - there is still an amount of *HOW*, and
probably always will be. 4GL's these day are usually bundeled with tools
that take much work out of the *HOW* part - such as screen genrators. As
far as PC's go - I would include applications generating languages such
as DBASE IV as getting pretty close to 4GL's as far as database applications
go (In fact I would include the entire XBase language in this statement).

Anyway, these are my opinions.

Cheers!

<GE> a.k.a. [e-mail]