Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Nonsense citation needed |
||
Line 7:
In the 1980s, fifth-generation languages were considered to be the way of the future, and some predicted that they would replace all other languages for system development, with the exception of low-level languages.{{Citation needed|date=July 2009}} Most notably, from 1982 to 1993 [[Japan]]<ref name="Ref1">{{Cite web|url=http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/fifth_generation.php|title=FIFTH-GENERATION COMPUTERS|accessdate=2008-03-05|author=Richard Grigonis}}</ref><ref name="Ref2">{{Cite web|url=http://www.logicprogramming.org/|title=Association for Logic Programming (ALP)|accessdate=2008-03-05|author=ALP}}</ref> put much research and money into their [[fifth generation computer systems project]], hoping to design a massive computer network of machines using these tools.
However, as larger programs were built, the flaws of the approach became more apparent. It turns out that, given a set of constraints defining a particular problem, deriving an efficient algorithm to solve it is a very difficult problem in itself. This crucial step cannot yet be automated and still requires the insight of a human programmer.
==Common misconception==
Vendors have been known on occasion to advertise their languages as 5GL.<ref>[http://www.it-analysis.com/channels/content.php?cid=9096 What makes a 5GL?]</ref> Most of the time they actually sell [[4GL]]s with a higher level of automation and [[knowledge base]]. Because the hype of the 1980s faded away and the projects were eventually all dropped, 5GL awareness has also dropped; this has opened doors to the vendors to re-use the term in marketing their new tools, without causing much controversy among the current generations of programmers.{{Citation needed|date=October 2013}}
| |||