From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1014db,63ef8c05ac090a41 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,63ef8c05ac090a41 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,63ef8c05ac090a41 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: 4th generation languages Date: 1996/10/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190233592 references: <3265D240.287B@tam2000.tamu.edu> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ Date: 1996-10-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Steven said "A fourth generation language is one that is NOT procedural based. C++, although it is object oriented, it is not a 4th generation language. An example of a 4th generation language would be SQL, SmallTalk,etc.. Basically, any programming language that looks like plain English. " This is wrong. 4th generation language is a term coined by Jim Martin to refer to high level non-procedural languages, typified by Focus. Looking like English has nothing to do with the definition. SQL would not by itself qualify either I don't think. I certainly don't think that Jim would consider Smalltalk to qualify, I certainly would not - I will ask him, but the important thing is that the plain English comment is COMPLETELY wrong.