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 PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 must be > balanced against > an active culture of innovation and language development that would otherwise > result in > divergence and vendor lock-in. > > We have a beginning foundation for that in the existence of several open > source > implementations of mumps, but so far it seems that very few people are > involved in > innovation at the language level, even to the point of informally discussing > language > enhancements for experimental implementation. > > >The fact is MUMPS is > >perceived as an old procedural language. It's viewed as dead by the > >'outside' world. > > Before GT.M was released for GNU/Linux MUMPS seemed very close to dead for > many of the > rest of us as well. > > >If you want to get new blood involved, the goals for the > >language will have to show an evolution towards what the rest of the world > >wants, not what makes the existing MUMPS community comfortable. > > I agree with this to some extent. People who care about long term viability > of a MUMPS > community must find and embrace a path to enabling new applications and ways > of doing > things with existing applications that includes easy coexistence and > cooperation with > applications and parts of applications written in other languages. > > The main thing that needs to be shown to new people is evidence of compelling > value in > learning MUMPS and committing the time and effort to building new > applications and in > extending and fixing old ones to fit with newer technologies - especially the > web. > > >Its future > >must be viewed as in step with existing technologies. Without climbing into > >the pulpit, I think everyone knows the direction it must take :-) > > Yes, indeed, but there may be more than one. ;-) The obvious need in my view > is for > language features to facilitate development of web based applications and an > easy mix with > other programming languages and OS features. > > > > --------------------------------------- > Jim Self > Systems Architect, Lead Developer > VMTH Computer Services, UC Davis > (http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/us/jaself) > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Hardhats-members mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members > ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
