Believe me, when I talk to people about M, they are not reading from the same page you are. The dead state of M is the A1 reason I get for why VistA has to be ported to another language and as best I can tell, its viability is very much judged by the lack of existence of the MDC and the perception that there are not enough M programmers.
To me, a language is a language and a programmer can program anything he/she puts his/her mind to. How long would it take for an experienced programmer in another language to switch gears and learn M? (I know M is different, but give someone Richard's book that clearly tells you what the differences between M and other languages, and it won't be any more than usual.) How long would there be a shortage of programmers if the VA decided to switch course and quit sidelining the programmers? How many would come out of the woodwork and welcome the chance to use their skills again? How many people who are leaving in disgust would rip up those retirement papers for a chance to join the effort and help train new people? And no, this is not the reason that a different language could just as well be used to fix up VistA. CHCS II ought to be evidence enough that that strategy is nuts! Reviving the MDC is what I think is the one step in the right direction. The VSA out there talking up VistA is another step. Helping VistA-Office to succeed is another. Kevin installing and talking about VistA is another, etc., etc. You guys need some "M"ozac. You are all too depressed. I know that you have been fighting for 26 years + and are getting battle weary, but don't join the other side. This time of the administration pushing medical records and having the best thing out there to champion is not the time to throw in the towel! On Monday 28 February 2005 04:53 pm, Cameron Schlehuber wrote: > Why should the criteria for a "living language" be that it is undergoing > constant change? Do standards have to change just to be considered > "living"? The criteria could just as easily be that it is used in a > competitive marketplace. To my knowledge not all of the '95 standards have > been implemented by ANY vendor. And as I understand the history, one of > the problems that faced M seen by a few vendors in the late '90s was that > it was being changed too drastically by the MDC, or at least that the juice > wasn't worth the squeeze. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nancy > Anthracite > Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 2:24 PM > To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] MDC Revival > > Don't you think that the VA is one big fat carrot and stick? They are > currently using the standard, and they may succeed in dumping M, but > personally, I think they will fail and the question is whether they do it > before or after blowing millions if not billions in an effort to port this > system to something else. They should just fix what they have an get on > with > it. If they just quit trying to get rid of it, I think that they will be > able to bring in new people to advance and maintain VistA, but it they > persist in this misguided effort, they are just shooting themselves in > their > > collective feet. > > Being vendors of a dead language can't be good, at least not unless you > deny > > what you are I guess, and you become "X" instead of M. That seems to be an > attractive strategy that might be reversed if the MDC became viable again. > > Hopefully, the vendors and all of the big sticks with carrots will want to > participate in that effort. If the VA ever sees the light, maybe they will > participate as well. > > If push comes to shove and none of the vendors want to participate, maybe > at > > least an ANSI standard can exist and progress to be there for the VA to > use > > to move VistA along after the next congressional investigation explores > where > all of that money went when the VA tried to move VistA away from M! > > On Monday 28 February 2005 02:55 pm, Bhaskar, KS wrote: > > I agree that from a user's perspective, having a standard makes a > > technology easier to accept, sell to management, sell to the general > > public, sell to politicians, etc. > > > > From a vendor's perspective, it costs money to comply with a standard, > > and there must be enough people who say, "If you comply with the > > standard, > > I'll > > > buy your product" (carrot) or, "If you don't comply with the standard, I > > won't buy your product" (stick). Especially in the case of a public > > company, there is a fiduciary responsibility to the owners (the general > > public) to spend money to maximize return. > > > > In the case of an M standard, who would proffer carrots or take a stick > > to the vendors? > > > > -- Bhaskar -- Nancy Anthracite ------------------------------------------------------- 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://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
