Re: 4gl: Better than sliced bread?

In article <C6xI2C.LMn@promdist.pds.com> bill@promdist.pds.com (Bill Foote) writes: >In article <1993May11.211120.27014@rpslmc.edu> eklhad@siss81.sis.rpslmc.edu (Karl Dahlke) writes: >>Our first version of the general_view_screen system was >>extremely awkward, due primarily to the lack of function pointers in 4gl. >Hmmm, given the lack of function pointers, the creation of any kind of >abstract data type would be nigh on impossible. >I'm curious: From the people out there who have used 4gl and C extensively, >what would you say the "productivity gain" is? I have used Informix 4GL since 1989, and used ESQL/C for maybe three years before that. I guess I just learned to write C programs that use Informix forms for data input functionality. Now, when I write applications, they are still written in C, they just call 4GL functions to do the stuff they do fairly well. I retain all the power of C, while gaining the advantages of Informix forms and database querying. What I find especially fun is to use cpp to convert generic 4GL proto- type functions into compilable 4GL. >Seriously, I've never used 4gl, but from what I've heard it's useful for >knocking out applications that don't get too involved. As long as you >don't need to do anything that requires the power of C, it's OK, and they >let you link in C functions when you need to. If you want to write anything >like a general library that you can re-use, or a program that uses pipes >or anything slightly complicated, you're better off in C. > The primary advantage of 4GL (IMHO) is rapid prototyping. The execution speed of 4GL programs is at least 10 times slower than of an equivalent C program. I'll write the user interface using 4GL, then finish the application in C. Kenn Wolking (kenn@fang.att.com) Of course it's only my opinion! Nobody else gives a damn what I think.