Talk:OpenEdge Advanced Business Language

This article was nominated for deletion on February 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Train Wreck

This has just gone from bad to worse. The new article REALLY DOES look like nothing more than a fluff piece. The old article had flaws, but this is not an improvement. 80.195.66.18 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then get your pen in gear and do something about it. It's not fluff, it's accurate as far as it goes. Does it go far enough? Perhaps not. You're welcome to do better. ABLsaurusRex 17:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Realy there is no way to get around the fluff, however I do give credit to ABLsaurusRex for pounding the pavement by finding some notable citations, although not all independent of the subject itself, but much more encyclopedic than the previous version. I believe some lattitude should be given in this case.--Hu12 17:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand from this discussion is a comparison with a ridiculous trivial programming language that is listed in the WP called Brainfuck. I don't see ANY notability for it at all. I see of lists of external links and usage. We can provide that as well. But multiple independent published sources are not listed for Brainfuck. Progress is not a trivial language that can list all it's thousands of commands. So it seems very plain editor bias in persecuting Progress, which has a large worldwide community of developers and actually is used to generate revenue by thousands of companies. The editors seem to be unaware of embedded systems and value added resellers and how they work. I don't know what the Progress wiki looked like before but it had to be more than this. ninjadude9 04:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that Brainfuck is not notable, then you are free to tag it as such or discuss your concerns on its talk page. Saligron 05:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, everyone's an editor; there is really no such thing as editor bias -- only the attentions of one particular editor or another. Who knows why some articles gain the attention of an editor? We happen to have come to the attentions of folks who really don't understand mutable knowledge; oh well. They must be endured. ABLsaurusRex 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A more accurate comparison might be to the FOCUS article which contains no sources or references, mixes discussion with the article, etc. This might invalidate it in some eyes; but I think some knowledge is better than no knowledge at all. Apparently that is not a popular opinion on Wikipedia. ABLsaurusRex 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Fresh

I have removed all the cra^H^H^Hstuff and started fresh. I'm in ABQ, and I doubt that we have a library large enough to have copies of Datapro, but some someone who has access to older copies of datapro might one to consult one of their articles. They were, at least in the 80's and early 90's an independent source evaluating the capabilities of various 4GLs and other application development environments. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 17:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a first pass and added some structure that I mean to fill in shortly. Hopefully we'll get some time to fill in the structure. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page Changes

I archived the old discussion /Archive 1. It was getting to be a lot to scroll through to get to the current discussion. I debated with myself, the only debates I seem to win, and decided that the Rewrite section didn't need to be brought over since a rewrite had already taken place. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 22:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normaly when pages reach 60KB [1] they are archived, this was only 24.3kB. Some firefox users have reported issues above 30, however thats a side note. I don't have issue (and I doubt any one else will), just an fyi. It may however make it difficult for editors later to follow, how and why changes have been made.--Hu12 17:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Renamed

I renamed the topic to OpenEdge Advanced Business Language (ABL) because I have a penchant for accuracy and the whole Progress 4GL kept nagging at me a being somewhat inaccurate. While I suspect that most folks who know still say PROGRESS, that will change over time. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I personally suspect that many people will be calling it Progress 4GL for a very long time. Not least because many people are still working with version 9, which of course retains the old name. 78.144.210.129 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just Googled "Progress 4GL" and got 44,700 hits; "Openedge ABL" gets 1,600. No idea if that is really significant, though. 78.144.210.129 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

How about:

While conventional programming languages such as C or Java tend to change the core language slowly and typically expand capability by adding library packs, OpenEdge ABL, in a pattern typical of fourth generation languages, usually expands the language with each new release and could be said to have been in continuous evolution since it was first released in 1982. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have simply listed a timeline of major changes. Readers can see that it's evolved for themselves, and this page is not about C or Java. Saligron 08:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A timeline of major changes would be an effort requiring more time than I have available, perhaps someone else will find the time. Such a timeline might be considered original research. ABLsaurusRex 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the article is not about C or Java, almost all programmers are aware of these two languages, and a comparison to one or the other is not uncommon. If someone is not a programmer, then they may think all languages are alike; a hint or suggestion that they are not doesn't seem to me to be out of order. A little "compare and contrast" is useful for learning. What's the point of having information in any encyclopedia, free or not, if it can't be used for learning? ABLsaurusRex 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Structure Removal

I removed the stucture I originally installed, because I couldn't figure out how to fill it in without violating PSC copyrights. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 14:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not much info on the capabilities of the language

I found this article useful for historical information but nearly useless in terms of technical details.

Does it support recursion? Is it strongly or weakly typed? Does it support arrays? objects? How does it compare to other 4GL languages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.194.201 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some basic information on the syntax, and some simple examples. Agreed, someone better at comparative languages than me should get techie with this. 78.144.210.129 (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An bridge too far

the language looks like the polished article of a terrible relational outcome if not well regarded for the finished article presentation of industrial loss from flight of fancy. I cringe to project the utility of programming code into natural language excesses with bloated verbose celebrated Cnua (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]