Talk:PowerBuilder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the PowerBuilder article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Lost history 2 NPOV issues 3 NPOV and lacking a critisism section 4 Out of print?

[edit] Lost history

This page lost all its edit history when it was moved from Powerbuilder. akaDruid 09:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

A couple of things looked like they violated NPOV. I changed the ones I was sure about. The comment "Of course, to run the above example application, you must purchase and install the PowerBuilder development tool" appears rather inane and un-encyclopedia-like and I think it can be pulled out.

I did so. Chip Unicorn 23:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and lacking a critisism section

I agree with the content not maintaining a NPOV, the datawindow component is not "famous" unless youi either ask Sybase or a if you believe the marketing hype. Also it falls short when developing big applications with a large number of objects, a compile to machine code can take on the order of hours! It also has a lot of bugs when you want to do any integration work.

I am going to stick my head out and give critique, please feel free to disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TempestSA (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC).

I do not think adding original research with new uncited, non-neutral material is an improvement. Removing "famous" and the "well-suited" bits were good, though. -- JHunterJ 01:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The article only having a "Language Advantages" section is imho, non-neutral. I am a not fond of the language, and I believe the marketing hype around it is aimed more at managers than developers, but to each his own. The section pertaining to the advantages of the language also mentions functionality that all modern languages have (like connecting to a database, consume an ActiveX/COM object etc), even Microsoft Excel can connect to a database and consume an ActiveX/COM object. -- TempestSA 04:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the DataWindow is "famous" enough for one of the IBM folks to consider it a missing ingredient in AJAX: http://www-03.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/BobZurek?entry=data_intensive_ajax_applications_the. As for machine code compiles, that's been a thing of the past for a while. Given that few people use it, I can't see why it would be a major detraction. I'd also be interesting to hear specifics about the bugginess of the integration API, given that I've used it extensively and it works well for me. On the other hand, the Advantages section is poorly worded, makes a number of claims for features that are characteristic of any development tool (e.g., ability to call Windows API functions). It could use an entire rewrite, more along the lines of what is unique about the product. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bruce.a.armstrong (talk • contribs) 04:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Out of print?

hmm is this OOP? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.88.124.146 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC).

No. Check the official site and click "Buy Now". -- JHunterJ 11:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)