On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 12:37 -0700, Greg Woodhouse wrote: > > --- Todd Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So yeah, I'd say not for the faint of heart. > > > > --Todd > > > > I might add that developing a NEW product could prove to be easier, and > a more successful strategy than trying to port the old one. It's like > trying to "program" a neural net weight by weight, when it would be so > much easier to train it again from fresh data. >
I would disagree. Developing a 'NEW' product that has the features of CPRS is in effect, porting CPRS regardless of how you want to term it, or change how the GUI works. I don't believe the analogy of neural networks applies in the least in this case. And the only real way to look at this is you have to first understand 160,000 lines of code, and then rewrite them. Sure, you can do this as you go, and sure, you can make tons of changes to make the code smaller and more maintainable (this is something we do all the time), but you still are porting the application and there is no two ways about it. As far as developing an application that functions *actually* different than CPRS, that is in fact MORE work, as you will have to write RPC calls to return the information your application needs that CPRS does not. And then you get into not only being able to write M, but also understanding of tons of various packages in VistA, and this is *NOT* trivial as many of you understand. --Todd ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
