Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #46984 > unrolled thread

Re: Do you consider Python a 4GL? Why (not)?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Do you consider Python a 4GL? Why (not)? Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-06-05 01:21 +0100

#46984 — Re: Do you consider Python a 4GL? Why (not)?

On 05/06/2013 01:14, Tim Chase wrote:
> On 2013-06-05 02:53, Carlos Nepomuceno wrote:
>> Do you consider Python a 4GL? Why (not)?
>
> Of course it's a 4GL ("4 Guido Language").  You think he wrote it for
> somebody else?
>
> Unless you have some magical list of criteria that makes your own
> definition of "4GL", in which case you should look at your list of
> those "4GL" definitions and weigh them against publicly known facts
> about Python, yielding the answer to your question. :-P
>
> -tkc
>
>

"Publicly known facts" as in Python is a weakly typed language? :)

-- 
"Steve is going for the pink ball - and for those of you who are 
watching in black and white, the pink is next to the green." Snooker 
commentator 'Whispering' Ted Lowe.

Mark Lawrence

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web