I think it is unfortunate that there are so many platform dependencies associated with a choice of MUMPS implementation and basic bits of functionality missing that should not be missing either from a language or its standard libraries. How best to address this situation is a different matter, but surely there has to be an alternative to all the (largely unnecessary) configuration work everyone has to do when adopting VistA.
I do recognize that companies like InterSystems and Fidelity have business interests here which really cannot and should not be ignored. But it should not be so hard to get VistA running out of the box, and VistA adopters should not be forced into using one particular operating system. What can be done? Well, developing software takes time and resources, meaning it is necessary to set priorities and make choices. Is it worth it to try and update the infrastructure upon which VistA is based (including the MUMPS implementation)? I think the answer is yes, but I can understand this is not uncontroversial. Both GT.M and Cache' are excellent products. They are, of course, designed for slightly different purposes and offer different features. Both are highly scaleable, but Cache' is designed to provide a sophisticated database model (called post-relational in InterSystems' literature, and I think the name fits), and GT.M is more of a traditional MUMPS implementation, emphasizing scaleability and efficiency. Personally (and I really mean that, I'm not speaking for anyone else), I'd like to see more of an effort go into creating a uniform user experience, and to mitigating the degree to which adopters need to wrestle with platform issues. I know that resources do not just magically appear when they are needed, but I do believe that supporting a variety of major operating systems and platforms is a must. I know that is not trivial, especially for any product incorporating a compiler, but it is not insurmountable. What does need to happen, though, is that we need to come together to work on the problem. I have some ideas, and hope to work on the problem when I can, but I'm only one person (as is true of everyone else on this list). We don't all share the same priorities, and in fact, I think that this is a big part of what makes VistA work. CPRS (or HL7 or Fileman) may be a wonderful program, but it is only one piece of the puzzle, and VistA never would have become what it is today if it were a single monolithic program, without individual components designed to address more specific problems. It simply won't do to treat infrastucture as a "luxury" only to be considered once you get your applications running. I like Bhaskar's analogy of a city. When you walk down the street, you may not see much plumbing, but you know very well that the city depends on it being there to function! === 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
