Talk:OpenEdge Advanced Business Language/Archive 1

Notability of Progress 4GL

Greg.Higgins@peg.com 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC) The current article reads like a badly written advertisiment for Amduus Information Works. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 13:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be a weakly written entry, but that doesn't make the language insignificant. With over 5 million users of applications written in the language and over $5 billion in annual sales for the companies application partners, the language is empirically much more significant than many trendier ones that have only academic followings.Tamhas 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that an editor is concerned. I've checked every other 4GL language and a fair number of the progreamming languages in general and this is the only one I could find tagged. I don't understand why. Granted, the article itself is a bit biased against Progress, but there could be any number of reasons for that. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 21:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the page itself to indicate what is so notable about the language (was it the subject of multiple studies of 4GL languages? any truly unique features in the language (I don't see any)? non-trivial references in multiple independent sources? etc.). Also, the lack of tagging in other pages alone does not mean that this page should not be tagged. (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) Saligron 07:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You may say that the lack of tagging doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied here, but I find it as evidence of editor bias. No language that is used by tens of thousands of programmers every single day should be eliminated before dozens of other obscure languages which are seldom used. How can Wikipedia be encyclopedic if you're ignoring a major development language. Granted it isn't the world's largest development language, but it does have a significant community. To keep it out is to deny its existence. What are you folks trying to do, re-write history? I find this whole process mindboggling. I think you need to find other things to worry about. I find this whole denial of my professional life orwellian to say the least. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 06:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's lack of information, not editor bias. The proper response is to describe how the language is notable instead of complaining. For several weeks I had no idea how the language was notable. Many of the comments were "I or my company use it", which isn't terribly useful. In this respect, the comment by Tamhas is much more useful, being specific on how the language is notable.

(It's not my personal mission to go through every article in Wikipedia to check for notability. (I already did a "check all pages in a category for notability", and I'm not going to do another for a long while.) If you feel that an article is about a non-notable subject with nothing in the talk page indicating otherwise, you're free to tag them as such yourself, keeping in mind that notability means being dealt with in multiple reliable sources and not popularity.) Saligron 06:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm not that arrogant. I recognise there are many things I have not heard of. I recognise, as did the members of this community once, that some articles take time to take shape. I also know that not everything of relevance has been written about in a book. This whole discussion has served to corrupt the article rather than improve it.Greg.Higgins@peg.com 13:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick look around and came across an interesting fact, 3 of the top 10 ERP vendors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors, at least the ones I recognized, cited here @wikipedia use Progress 4GL either almost exclusively or have large parts written in Progress 4GL. The vendors are Infor, QAD and Epicor. I also remember reading about a couple of Progress 4GL based applications (or OpenEdge as the platform is called these days) for Volvo and BGN customers @infoworld.com in the 2006 100 awards, as they are almost every year. http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/article/06/11/13/46FE06iw100retail_1.html .The Progress 4GL and RDBMS is also cited in The Oreilly's "Learning SQL" book as one in a very short list of database specific languages in the "Where to go next" chapter. alonb—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.29.203.226 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 February 2007.

I just came to Wikipedia to look this language up 141.213.66.102 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I came here to look this up too. 209.134.159.221 16:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what made you try to find the language in Wikipedia instead of reference manuals, etc.? This could help explain in the article what makes the language notable. Saligron 02:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

People want to know what a thing is. If you're a techie, like myself and most of my on-line community, you go to various places to find things. Sometimes I google; however, knowing that Wikipedia has an extensive collection of articles about programming languages, if someone told me they had worked in a language I was unfamiliar with, I might look here. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that it's so hard to find references to make this "notable". I programmed in Progress 4GL in the mid-1990s and Progress was a pretty big company back then...but now I'm googling around and it seems to have been abandoned. Personally, I'd just rather see a "Progress 4GL" section under the main Progress Software article. I'll look for some proper references but if nobody's using it...well, maybe it just needs to be a section rather than an article. (on the other hand, if the Pick operating system is considered "notable", I think Progress 4GL should also be notable :-) Thomas Dzubin _Talk 02:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not true that no ones using it, I personally have been using it for 20 years. I operate the PEG which is the world's largest Progress User Group and our 4000+ subscribers to our 40+ mailing lists and our web site visitors use it on a daily basis. We're about 10% of the world wide community. It is true that almost none of PEG's 480,000 postings are indexed anywhere else, and it is true that the community tends to congregate around PEG; it's also true that Progress is used to write business applications, and computer scientists generally don't write books about writing business software, and if they do, they choose the more popular languages because they want to sell books. It seems to me we're just in a situation where 1 person hasn't heard of something and now he wants to delete it from the Wikipedia. I object to that. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 06:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have always considered Progress to be a notable 4GL. When thinking about 4GLs it is one that always comes to mind. I was first made aware of it in the early 90s when my then employers considered selecting it as a development tool. It lost out to Ross Systems' Gembase then. Lately it has new relevance for me personally, as my current employers are to be taken over by a Progress-using software house. That's why I came here today, and was surprised to see the article marked for deletion.

Now, I have since checked the deletion policy, and honestly cannot find that this article matches criteria for deletion based on lack of notability, so will remove the notice. Tindwcel 15:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please explain your removal of this notice, other than "I have always considered Progress to be a notable 4GL", with out addressing the concern by improving, copyediting or sourcing the article. Even though removing the notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. there has been a considerable amount of concern regarding Notability of Progress 4GL, possibly consensus is needed--Hu12 10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The original notice stated;

"You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason."

I came here looking for information about Progress. I was glad the article was here. I was surprised to see the deletion notice and removed it because I objected, as I was entitled to do. Again, according to the notice, my reason did not matter. Progress *is* notable, although the article does fail to establish this. The article should be improved, not deleted. Sadly, I am not the person to improve it, as again, I came here *looking* for information about Progress.

Why have you now added a different notice? The current one says "this notice must not be removed". Is this because the original notice was wronly added, or because you wish to deny us the right to remove the notice, which I exercised first time round? Tindwcel 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's because it's going through a different process. Proposed deletions can be contested by anyone by simply removing the notice, while the articles for discussion process must go through discussion before deciding whether to keep or delete the article, until which the notice must not be removed. Saligron 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

For people who know nothing about Progress 4GL, the article as it is clearly fails WP:Notability due to its lack of independent reliable sources. In fact, simply reading the article gives me little idea on how the language is notable, i.e. why anyone other than Progress 4GL users would care about the language (never mind the lack of sources backing up notability). There's a vague mention about "commercial success", but this doesn't really tell me anything. Have tagged this page as such.

BTW, is it normal to call the language just "Progress"? There's no mention of this in the article, so when "Progress" appears I get confused momentarily on whether it means the language or the company. Saligron 03:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article lacks sources and should be improved. Tindwcel 09:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

People who work with the language generally refer to it was "Progress". I worked with the language for 6 years. Many companies still use it. I don't understand why people are talking about deleting it. Surely one of the purposes of an encyclapaedia is to document little-known things? If we delete Progress we’ll have to delete other obscure programming environments like Lisp. User:Geraldkelly 14:07, 23 February 2007 (GMT)

The platform was renamed/rebranded OpenEdge in release 10, I think, around the year 2000. Some people are getting used to calling it (the platform) OpenEdge, especially Progress (the company). So I'd imagine OpenEdge will be used in more recent publications. The language also went through several names, if I'm not mistaken, the language started as RDL (pronounced riddle) that also has influences from another 4GL the MIMS 4GL, then Progress 4GL, and recently renamed ABL (for advanced business language). alonb—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.29.203.226 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 27 February 2007.

Lisp is a really bad example. Its article clearly states how the language is notable, and there are a whole lot of third-party sources (and implementations, in fact) in the literature. It's used (or was used) extensively in artificial intelligence, and influenced the design of numerous other languages (with numerous references in the literature). I have no knowledge of Progress 4GL, so I have no idea if it even comes close in terms of notability (and the article doesn't help me with this at all). And WP:NN#Notability is not popularity, not to mention the lack of specifics for the popularity claim. Saligron 02:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to the article

Markthompson wi 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Added historical references and commentary on the various Progress Versions. Any of the regular PEG contributors would be more qualified than myself to speak on the various points. I'll probably drop some language examples in here at some point for comparison against SQL or BASIC for example. Added some references and the new book by John Saad as well. The article was also flagged for prospective "TBD" type of language in the description of changes.

Links I added a link to The OpenEdge Hive http://www.oehive.org/ , which is a significant source of downloadable tools, code samples, and whitepapers related to this language, but someone seems to think this is inappropriate. There should also be a link to PSDN ... I would add it, but I dislike doing things and then having them erased. Tamhas 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Question for Editor Hu12

I'm something of a newbie so forgive some some of the failings of "inexperience" regarding my additions here. However, what specifically might you consider notable, for instance vs. the Awk or PICK or some other less than popular language.

Could you perhaps provide a reference to something which exists in another language wiki which does not exist here?

I am genuinely interested in helping this have it's own niche in ths scheme of things, as it has been a relatively popular language for business application use for about 20 years.

Certainly examples of code be appropriate considering this is a language but would that be sufficient - a comparison/contrast vs. some other language?

As far as published media is concerned the Progress community is rather tightly held and collectively somewhat - shy - so there is a definite shortage of such but no more so than the published books exclusively dedicated to "Awk" for example.

Markthompson wi 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats needed is criteria establishing WP:NOTE. This has been another editors concern as well. I see your enthusiastic, and by no means am i attempting to deter you from contributing good context. However, since the first question of notability arose, most citations (by others as well) have not been multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. thanks--Hu12 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Progress 4GL to 4GL developed by Progress Software Corporation

Markthompson wi 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Hu12, I certainly see your point in so far as there are no derivative works other than Kassabgi, which really isn't quite derivative but was is/was published by Que. Would it be - possibly a good idea to consider this as an wiki sub-section to the [Progress Software Corporation] - "4GL Language Developed by..." type of entry.

I certainly found other languages with similar levels of notability / historical use (Snobol etc).

The Tyranny of the Tree Killers

I used to think Wikipedia was a good thing. However, it now occurs to me that it has fallen under the influence of the tree killers, blindly following the assumption that the only knowledge worth repeating is that which a tree has died for. There are hundreds of thousands of primary and secondary sources of information about Progress 4GL. It's a computer language. It, its constructs and its developers live in cyberspace. The discussions about it live in cyberspace. The manuals are distributed on-line, help is done on-line, its professional journal is online. Its a green language. But according to wikipedia standards, if a book hasn't been written, if a tree hasn't died, it doesn't count. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 13:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It would have been nice if Greg.Higgins@peg.com had cited even one of those secondary sources ... Saligron 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why bother? I walked the diff tree from back to front. Hu12 is busy ripping out any mention of the Progress community at large where these discussions take place. You won't allow citations from our professional journals, nor references from the manuals, nor citations or commentary from experts who have used the language for over 20 years. Datapro references don't seem to count, nor do VAR Business references; years from now, when someone actually gets around to writing about the 4GL explosion of languages of the 1980's, someone's going to look back and observe that of that era, there were very few successful 4GLs. PROGRESS will be among them. (Or maybe not, you'll have removed all references to it.)Greg.Higgins@peg.com 19:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of something I haven't done. Saligron 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You won't allow citations from our professional journals. Whats needed is multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself. Which excludes the repeated additions of progress links and self referencing. This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Saligron has mentioned WP:NN#Notability is not popularity, so please provide something, even if its from an independent trade journal. Also it has been suggested you change your username at Wikipedia:Changing username. E-mail addresses as usernames are not allowed and will eventualy be disabled. It raises questions of WP:COI and links to PEG.com and the related are treated as COI Advertising. I do Assume you, and the other Single purpose account's who's only contributions are to "progress" related articles are here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote Progress and funnel readers off Wikipedia, right?--Hu12 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made minor contributions some articles. I have not contributed to this article at all, except to add PEG to the external links. PEG is an independent source of information about the PROGRESS 4GL, and, at the time, early 2006, it seemed appropriate. Someone later came along and defaced the entry and made it point to ProgressTalk, a minor competitor, and I added PEG in again, leaving the ProgressTalk entry in place, since I'm not petty. Since I spell better than most people, I have a tendency to correct spelling errors, and sometimes the odd error in grammer, in articles I read. I'm also extraordinarily careful to be absolutely positive before I make a change, and if I'm less than 100% sure, I do nothing. I'm a reader, not a writer, outside my area of expertise. To classify me as a single purpose account is the height of elitism. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made minor contributions some articles. I have not contributed to this article at all, except to correct the spelling of Progress E-Mail Group and place it in alphabetical order with other non-PSC links. Every addition of PEG to the article came from someone else. I have walked the diff chain from front to Jan 2007 to verify this. PEG is an independent source of information about the PROGRESS 4GL. It is the world's largest Progress Users Group and generally the heart of the Progress community, so it is easy to see why some people might think that a link to PEG would be valuable to folks wanting to know more about Progress, particularly those folks who are interested in an up to date view of the language. Apparently HU12 thinks differently, since he's made a habit of removing the external links. It's appears to be his mission in life. My participation in general has been here, not in the article. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 13:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I spell better than most people, I have a tendency to correct spelling errors, and sometimes the odd error in grammer, in articles I read. I'm also extraordinarily careful to be absolutely positive before I make a change, and if I'm less than 100% sure, I do nothing. I'm a reader, not a writer, outside my area of expertise. To classify me as a single purpose account is the height of elitism. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My EMail address is my online identity. It tells who I am, and where you can find me. I'm sorry if my association with Wikipedia predates some rule which I've never seen and you seem to have pulled out of nowhere. I have no intention of changing my user name. To what? ABLsaurusRex? Would that somehow tell you more? I firmly believe that all user names should be email addresses. It's the one thing I always remember. Greg.Higgins@peg.com 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I concede the point, I have submitted the request for change.Greg.Higgins@peg.com 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - The Peg is not a profit making venture. It is a technical mailing list and web site for Progress related technology. The largest and longest running that is independent of Progress Software.
As I understand the COI it is inappropriate for Greg to refer to or write about Peg. But I am unsure whether it is appropriate/allowed for someone else to refer to or link to the Peg as an independent technical resource for Progress. -- Thanks, Stephen 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor note. PEG is always written in the same case; all upper or all lower, never mixed case.Greg.Higgins@peg.com 12:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I believe that there is full agreement that this article needs a rewrite.

The article does not conform to Wikipedia standards, but I believe the subject matter does merit an entry which should be obvious once the article is re-written to standard.

The threat of deletion has sparked interest amongst the Progress Developer community some of whom will soon be producing a more encyclopaedic article.

Please be patient with us while we become familiar with the Wikipedia standards and hopefully produce an acceptable article.

Stephen 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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)