So for all this 'hypothetical' we are discussing, isn't it already being done/been tried by Horst?? What is anyone suggesting that is different to the attempt he has already made? More money? More effort? More help? Surely the wheel does not have to be reinvented?
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Horst Herb Sent: Wednesday, 20 September 2006 8:17 AM To: General Practice Computing Group Talk Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] hypothetical On Tuesday 19 September 2006 17:03, David Guest wrote: > > develop *for* Australia. I made the big mistake with gnumed of wanting to > > make it flexible enough for multiple spoken languages and health systems. > > > > It seemed like a good idea at the time. Horst, can you elaborate on > these difficulties? Too many variables to juggle makes programming complex and performance slooow, let alone creating opportunities for far more bugs. It requires lots of compromises instead of settling for the very best solution for the particular task. Writing health software that runs on multiple platforms is easy,. Writing it for multiple health systems is horribly difficult. Nowadays I think that is is far easier sticking to the paradigm of small simple modules specialising in doing a single task well and cooperating via a well defined API - so that the country specific bits can be factored out and implemented specifically in dedicated modules Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
