Third-generation versus fourth-generation software development

Misra, S. K.; Jalics, Paul J.

doi:10.1109/52.17797

Cited by 19 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mili et al ( 1995) gave some formulae to calculate software development costs, when the building blocks approach was considered, but they did not give the similar formulae for generative approach. Misra and Jalics (1988) and Verner and Tate (1988) gave some crude guidelines only, but they did not pay attention the use of fourth-generation languages (as intelligent systems) in the automation of some portions of the development process. Our first framework shows that change of processors (between man and machine) creates all those additional subtasks (alternative 1): Transportation: developers must input their specifications, descriptions of data and algorithms, etc.…”

Section: To Support In Various Phases (Alternative 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our analysis contribute such a view that we should strive towards executable specifications and use fourth-generation languages. But Misra and Jalics (1988) and Verner and Tate (1988) compatibly show that it is sometimes difficult to present complex algorithms by using fourthgeneration languages. Execution or interpretation times of applications made by fourthgeneration languages are still slower than the ones in applications made by third-generation languages.…”

Section: To Support the Rest Of The Process (Alternative 3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Two frameworks for task analysis: An application to the use of intelligent systems in the development of information systems

Järvinen

1996

Advanced IT Tools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The productivity paradox of information technology has said to be one of the most difficult problem of computing field. We must try to improve productivity of both computing applications and software industry. It is therefore vital to identify and differentiate productive efforts from non-productive ones. In this paper we develop two frameworks for analysis of tasks in the development of information systems. When we automate part of the development, we at the same moment distribute tasks between man and computer. We shall show that this distribution will create some non-productive additional subtasks: Transportation, communication, inspection, coordination, coding/encoding and conversion. Our second framework consists of the initialisation and termination subtasks surrounded every process proper in a discontinuous, non-repetitive task. By making those implicit subtasks explicit and demonstrating their existence both in generative and building blocks approaches we want to increase our awareness, to improve productivity and to move consideration and management of those subtasks under conscious control.

show abstract

Section: To Support In Various Phases (Alternative 1)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: To Support the Rest Of The Process (Alternative 3)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two frameworks for task analysis: An application to the use of intelligent systems in the development of information systems

Järvinen

1996

Advanced IT Tools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, Misra and Jalics [21] developed a case sttidy application in three langtiages-PC/FOCUS, dBase III, and Cobol. Tfie developc"rs liad previous dBase ancl C'obol experience but were learning PCVFO(;US as they devel-()|)ecl the application.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Third and fourth generation language productivity differences

Klepper

Bock

1995

Commun. ACM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ENCEhis article reports the results of an empirical sttidy of the impact of fotirth generation langtiages (4GLs) on system developmetit prodtictivity relative to third generation languages (3GLs). Improving software development prodtictivity has long been a major objective of the information systems community, and the large ntimber of technological and managerial productivity improvement strategies reflect the importance of this objective [7,14]. For over a decade, many proponent.s have promoted 4GLs as productivity-enhancing tools. Harel and McLean define a 4GL as [13, p. 100]: ...nonproceduralm character, sometimes called 'English-like.' These langtiage.s (e.g., Foctis, RAMIS) 'state merely what the result is to be, not how to obtain it.' With nonprocedural langtiages, users need only describe the data and the relations that are appropriate to the application, not the detailed program steps. While Harel and McLean use one category of 4GLs as an example of the nonprocedtiral catego-THe «CM .Vplcmbrr I99.'>/Vnl..í8, No. 9 6 9 70 .Sipl,-mh

show abstract

“…In a literature search on 4GL's [3], it was found that they are almost ignored in the Computer Science literature, but widely covered in the trade press and information systems journals, where the interest centers on the cost, productivity and impact on the organization rather than the syntax or semantics of 4GL's [2,4,8]. A paper in which the authors have actually tried to use a 4GL is an exception [6]; It is an ominous sign that it paints a far less rosy picture than the average 4GL paper. Even the n-th rate textbook (n>=2), which is typical for languages like Fortran end Basic, is not available for most 4GL's (spreadsheets and database languages, which are sometimes included in the 4GL family, are an exception).…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Fourth generation problems

Casimir

1989

SIGPLAN Not.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fourth-Generation Languages or 4GL's [1,5] are a very special breed of languages. In a literature search on 4GL's [3], it was found that they are almost ignored in the Computer Science literature, but widely covered in the trade press and information systems journals, where the interest centers on the cost, productivity and impact on the organization rather than the syntax or semantics of 4GL's [2,4,8]. A paper in which the authors have actually tried to use a 4GL is an exception [6]; It is an ominous sign that it paints a far less rosy picture than the average 4GL paper. Even the n-th rate textbook (n>=2), which is typical for languages like Fortran end Basic, is not available for most 4GL's (spreadsheets and database languages, which are sometimes included in the 4GL family, are an exception). Thus, an addendum to a well-known classification scheme for programming languages [7] might read:Fourth Generation Languages: Reputedly the best cars on the market, but you cannot make a test drive or even see a showroom model, beacause the salesman only talks to your manager. The only thing you get to see is a glossy brochure comparing this make'8 speed and gasoline consumption on freeways with other cars' in downtown traffic.In my view, the principal reason for the success of 4GL's lies in the fact that they are used to solve a restricted set of problems. In this context it should be noted that 4GL's, like COBOL, but unlike Pascal and Fortran are "file" or "database" language; that means they not only use files for input or output, but also use files instead of programmer-designed data structures to store intermediate results. This restricts both COBOL problems and 4GL problems to file handling problems, the latter containing only the simple variety. As should expected, ~GL's are somewhat more efficient in solving this type of problem than COBOL, but the principal gain of using a 4GL lies in the necessary simplification of the problem definition. We will describe four typical mechanism for simplification: (i) change of input specifications, (ii) change of output specifications, and (iii) neglect of computing efficiency. Change of input specificationsWe start from the following problem:A plant produces a product in batches. Production of a batch takes a whole number of days. Between two batches at least one day is needed for cleaning. For each 30-day period, compute the number of days the plant has been used and the number of products produced. The input file contains the date of the first and the last day of the batch and the number of products in the batch. This is a typical problem for an undergraduate course in computer programming. Of course, the difficulty is in assigning the days and products to periods if the start and end of a batch are in different time periods. 83

show abstract

Third-generation versus fourth-generation software development

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Two frameworks for task analysis: An application to the use of intelligent systems in the development of information systems

Two frameworks for task analysis: An application to the use of intelligent systems in the development of information systems

Third and fourth generation language productivity differences

Fourth generation problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About