: Saturday, November 27, 2004 11:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it
Rick's letter to Kevin fails on only one small point... ...it is not
presented in a forum that accords it the distinctive position it deserves.
So, I urge you all to set
.
Or, if there is,
it hasn't been articulated very well.
But, as Rick says we'll see.
-Original Message-
From: Richard G. DAVIS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 11:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it
Rick's letter
, it just adds complexity.
-Original Message-
From: Greg Woodhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it
My take is that the basic assumption is that code has limited shelf
This seems to be a very good idea.
Perhaps some of you remember the (succesful) attempt of Dr. Wakai to
integrate Mumps and Prolog when Japan tried to make Prolog the core of the
fifth generation computer. One could use non procedural programming within a
procedural environment (or the other way
Remember...a language isn't slow, but an implementation may be. MUMPS
is in many ways easier to optimize than OO languages (or even
Algol-like languages) but it is not a priori the case that Python (say)
has to be slow.
--- Wolfgang Giere [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The very same argument was used
Jim, this is a wonderful analogy. And I agree with the consequences for program
life. I am told there are still IBM 1401 (Autocoder) programs used in emulation
...
BTW do you know of any study of the reasons why huge systems failed? I am
trying to understand why German megaprojects failed.
articulated very well.
But, as Rick says we'll see.
-Original Message-
From: Richard G. DAVIS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 11:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it
Rick's letter to Kevin fails on only one
I will just add to Bashkar's observation that part of the LIfe Cycele
Principles is a process called maintenance that can be used to deal with
this issue. Consult: http://www.swebok.org . That framework possesses the
ability to deal with this challenge if folks really want to address it and
-- Original Message ---
From: Wolfgang Giere [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:34:15 +0100
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it
BTW do you know of any study of the reasons why huge systems failed?
I am trying
. The possibilities are numerous and exciting.
Best wishes; Chris Richardson
- Original Message -
From: Prof. em. Dr. med. Wolfgang Giere [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:28 AM
Subject: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it (was) Re
...thanks Bhaskar, the answer was so obvious that it proves those that
are shy out there that you can ask a really dumb question on this list
and receive a very polite and informative reply... we are indeed a well
mannered group. :-)
Joseph
K.S. Bhaskar wrote:
Front end performance
Thanks Rick,
I agree that a language change would require a
complete rewrite of VistA, and that is not going to
happen.
I also agree re the hype issue with different
languages. And yes, VistA has done quite well without
all the extra bells and whistles of other languages.
I think we all
This is the approach I would like to see go forward.
Build on the work of others rather than reinvent the
wheel.
Kevin
--- Tom Munnecke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone looked at Python? It looks like a
nearest neighbor to
MUMPS, with lots of similarities. I has an
interesting
Btw, PHP also has similarities to M.
-- Bhaskar
On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 21:45, Tom Munnecke wrote:
Has anyone looked at Python? It looks like a nearest neighbor to
MUMPS, with lots of similarities. I has an interesting dictionary
capability, handles strings well, and a very strong object
I had a discussion recently with a copmuter professional about the merits of
various languages. Python was mentioned as one that has serious speed
problems when used on a large scale.
On Saturday 27 November 2004 08:15 pm, Joseph Dal Molin wrote:
Python is a superb choice to enhance and
Neither Python nor Java have the speed / throughput / scalability of M.
This won't matter to a practice (PCs are pretty fast these days), but is
likely to matter to institutions of any size.
-- Bhaskar
On Sat, 2004-11-27 at 21:47, Nancy E. Anthracite wrote:
I had a discussion recently with a
Dear Kevin,
We are not in a catch-22.
The Object-Oriented Language subcommittee (SC16) of the MDC spent many
years examining the state of the art in OO languages and databases to
determine how MUMPS should be upgraded with OO features. We know how to
do this, now, and we know why we cannot
The IETF requires something like this. Actually, there is no
requirement that multiple implementations be provided by different
vendors, but for an RFC to reach the status of standard, there must be
multiple interoperable implementations from different code bases. Tying
the procdess to commerical
Terry L. Wiechmann wrote:
A while back Kevin T. made a comment stating that MUMPS was a database
scripting language. Thirty years ago when one tier (physical) systems were
the rage, MUMPS played the role and played it well. Today, one and even two
tier systems are an anachronism.
I have heard you
It may also be useful to look at how the Python and Perl communities
are approaching language change. But, in any event, standardization of
a language that has evolved through an open source process (if that's
what MUMPS becomes) could be a bit of a thorny problem. There are open
source compilers
Terry L. Wiechmann wrote:
If the community is going to revive the standardization process, it better
have a 'vision' beyond the Millennium Standard.
I am excited to think that things may be moving in that direction, but I think
that
revival of a MUMPS standardization process may be premature. It
Has anyone looked at Python? It looks like a nearest neighbor to
MUMPS, with lots of similarities. I has an interesting dictionary
capability, handles strings well, and a very strong object model.
What about embedding M in Python?
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:41:10 -0800 (PST), Jim Self [EMAIL
This is wonderful. But I would suggest not to raise publicity before it isn't
clear that
there will be people and support for a new MDC and which route to take. Better
be
coutious now than frustrated later!
I have been member of the MDC and head of the German ISO delegation for years
and could
Yes completely agree regarding publicity etc.what I had in mind was
connecting the community nerve ending back together firstpublicity
must wait for the foundation to be in place.
Joseph
Prof. em. Dr. med. Wolfgang Giere wrote:
This is wonderful. But I would suggest not to raise
] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it (was) Re:
[Hardhats-members] Nov17thinterview [added] Dr. K, MUG, MDC, Goodbye Mumps
This is wonderful. But I would suggest not to raise publicity before it
isn't clear that
there will be people and support for a new MDC and which route to take.
Better be
coutious
, it will evolve with experience.
Terry L. Wiechmann
www.esitechnology.com
978-779-0257
Skype: twiechmann
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Dal Molin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do
While I like the idea of standards, and have been involved in standards
activities in other places and times (although not personally in the
MDC, I did pay for representation from GT.M), it would seem to me that
useful standards require multiple implementations from competing
vendors.
For vendors
]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:28 AM
Subject: [Hardhats-members] Re: MDC/MUG Revival - Just do it (was) Re:
[Hardhats-members] Nov17thinterview [added] Dr. K, MUG, MDC, Goodbye Mumps
This is wonderful. But I would suggest not to raise publicity before it
isn't clear
28 matches
Mail list logo
