Talk:Focus (programming language)

untitled

The article states: "Focus features the unique ability for the user to construct a data description file referring to the actual data file, or even several different data description files addressing the same data file in different ways, rather than the usual practice of having the file structure hard-coded into the program." Using a "schema" to describe the data is hardly a "unique ability" -- it is a fundamental property of just about any database management system or 4GL.

Also, please note that the name "FOCUS" should be in upper case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.92.96 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2005 (UTC)

---

Note: sorry if I'm doing this wrong... probably am. This wiki stuff is new to me. The section you are calling into question was in the original version of this document. I only edited that sentence it to put in the name of the metadata files (master files). In 1975, external meta data (meta data separate from the program itwself) was a unique feature and made FOCUS different from COBOL or PLI when accessing data.

Tried to explain better... is the feature as described really as universal among 4gls? I program in SAS and DB2 and you sure can't do that kind of stuff. I imagine as a data warehouse administrator you write database structures, but can you write multiple descriptors for the same actual data file? I'd be intersted to find out if anyone can spare the time to explain. thanks. Gzuckier 05:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I can remove that sentence anyway, since it is no longer a differentiator.

Can you tell me specifically why you flagged our 3 new pages (WebFOCUS, Information Builders and iWay Software) with the POV flag? I didn't see anything in the talk files for these POV disputes.

---

I edited the sentence to take out "unique" and made sure all reference to FOCUS were properly upper case. I also deleted the NPOV flag. Is this acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.185.136 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It should be as long as nobody still believes the article contains significant POV. It looks alright to me, although a little too pro-FOCUS. Deco 00:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, all the programming articles tend to give the positive features more weight. Although "this sucks because.... don't use it unless you have to" might actually be of more use to people. Gzuckier 05:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To give the "unique" part context, I made it say
"A feature that was unique at the time is that" Pi314m (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

---

FOCUS was not the orginal 4GL, NOMAD was. NOMAD, written by National NCSS, Inc, was launched in 1973 as successor and competitor to RAMIS on National CSS timesharing systems. It was the first database retrieval system to feature a full programming language, and a report statement that allows relational database operations. Its descendent is the SQL Select statement. See http://chp.computerhistory.org/blogs.php?user=National%20CSS&entry=2330 .

FOCUS was Gerry Cohen's answer to NOMAD. A PC version of NOMAD was written in the 80's. NOMAD still exists today and is actively being marketed — http://www.selectbs.com/products/nomad.htm . When and if I have time, I will revise the article about it.

NickP 12:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

---

feedback

Can verify most of what is in current text per my working experience 30 ya. It was the ugly traditional dp thing relative to smalltalk and prolog which were introduced to me at the same time/job. Relative to the mainframe CICS, VSAM kind of stuff though, it was considered advanced. Relational, which didn't really become dominant till the 90s, pretty much wiped it away though as often happens it necros to the present. Lycurgus (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 September 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 03:41, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

---

FOCUS → ? – Not sure this is the primary topic for FOCUS. Focus (German magazine) is also stylised in all caps. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Is this an abbreviation? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Never heard that it was, no. It was based off RAMIS, apparently, so I guess it went with the standard casing (see also FORTRAN and BASIC). In any case, oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  BASIC is an abbreviation (Beginner's All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code). RAMIS is also an abbreviation (Rapid Access Management Information System). The article on the other subject is at Fortran, not FORTRAN. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but it was officially FORTRAN until the Fortran 90 specification. (And yes, I know it was an abbreviation for FORmula TRANslation/ing/whichever.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

  If we had an essay called "Name-emphasizing fake acronyms really impede ordinary useful statements" at WP:NEFARIOUS, it would probably not require a great deal of other content. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 20:51, 12 October 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Focus (software) per WP:ALLCAPS since it is not an abbreviation. Therefore it would conflict with everything else named "Focus", of which that are an incredible amount of articles. Redirect FOCUS to Focus instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:23, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. A hatnote to the disambiguation page is included which adequately provides all the articles that a reader may need. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

This concern, if justified, can be addressed by redirecting FOCUS to wherever we decide to move the page. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Computing and WikiProject Software have been notified of this discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

• Move to Focus (programming language) per WP:ALLCAPS and MOS:TMRULES. Note that Zxcvbnm has proposed Focus (software), but I believe my proposal is more in line with existing practice, e.g., Elixir (programming language), Python (programming language), Pascal (programming language), etc. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
• Support move to Focus (programming language) per Kvng et al. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

  Would still prefer current title, but if it moves, would prefer the (programing language) disambiguator. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Multiple proposals, relisting for more discussion Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support move to Focus (programming language) to keep it consistent with other similar languages. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.