Talk:OpenEdge Advanced Business Language

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Train Wreck

message: 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)
thread_title: Starting Fresh

message: 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)
replies: text: Normaly when pages reach 60KB  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)
thread_title:  Talk Page Changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Topic Renamed 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Structure Removal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not much info on the capabilities of the language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An bridge too far