On 12/2/05, Greg Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was hoping that Bhaskar's (visionary, IMO) suggestion that the global > subsystem could be designed to link directly with compiled > applications, thereby opening up the possibility of using the same > globals in multiple language environments, would have provoked more > discussion. As it happens, no one seems to have taken much notice.
Greg, we have discussed the before. I believe it is the means that allows perl to link to M data. On the Sanchez website: http://www.sanchez-gtm.com/technology/architecture.htm there is a graphic which show this. I think it is excellent, but it doesn't address my need to have a medical record system for my office. VistA does, so I am working with it. But someone who enjoys exploring these things, such as yourself, could certainly open up some opportunities.... Perhaps a Haskell-GTM combo? Kevin > > From a technical point of view, I think this is feasible, but it > probably requires strong (though not necessarily explicit) typing. The > danger is that an implementation would end up being nothing more than a > JIT MUMPS compiler. Now, mind you, I'm not saying that wouldn't be a > good thing, but I don't really think it's the best strategy for opening > up VistA to a multi-language environment. I know I sometimes try > people's patience with theoretical discussions (but in my own defense, > Jim Self didn't ask me to talk about functional programming in MUMPS, > he asked me to try to explain certain *concepts* in terms of MUMPS, not > at all the same thing!), but I think it could be a useful exercise to > try and specify a language binding, say for C or Perl or Python, > without really worrying about implementation. In implementation terms, > I think of a language independent global subsystem as looking a bit > like a mountable filesystem, but we can cross that bridge when we come > to it. > > I'm not trying to "move away from MUMPS" (though that is not, in and of > itself, such a terrible thing). Paradoxically, I think people will only > be *more* willing to look at MUMPS if they feel less bound to it. If it > is a tool you can use when it is happens to be the best way to > accomplish the job, that is one thing: if it's a commitment that you > have to make and then never look back, that is another. I know that > "letting a thing go so that it comes back to you" sounds rather trite, > but think about it. > > === > Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Interaction is the mind-body problem of computing." > --Philip L. Wadler > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
