Fourth-generation languages. Volume I: principles
Fourth-generation languages. Volume I: principles
4GL: fourth-generation languages; vol. II: representative 4GLs
4GL: fourth-generation languages; vol. II: representative 4GLs
ACM SIGPLAN Notices
A model for measuring information system size
MIS Quarterly
Science and Substance: A Challenge to Software Engineers
IEEE Software
Third and fourth generation language productivity differences
Communications of the ACM
Splitting the Difference: The Historical Necessity of Synthesis in Software Engineering
IEEE Annals of the History of Computing
Towards a Formalism to Produce a Programmer Assistant CASE Tool
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
Reusing Software: Issues and Research Directions
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering
| Hi-index | 0.02 |
A case study examines how fourth-generation languages do well and how they come up short compared to their predecessors. Two fourth-generation tools dBase III and PC/Focus were used, and a solution in Cobol was developed to use as a benchmark for third-generation-language performance. For each solution, development effort, code size, and performance characteristics were examined. It was found that even though the code sizes were smaller with both fourth-generation tools, Cobol was clearly superior in performance. It took longer to develop the solution in Cobol than in dBase III but less time than in PC/Focus.