To be honest, if pressed, I'm not sure I could come up with a change in the 1999 C standard from the original ANSI C standard. I'd have to look it up.
--- Terry Wiechmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Excellent points! > > I would contend the MUMPS standard is complete! Putting more effort > into > it is a waste of important, limited resources that can be better used > to > advance the state of VistA, especially in the area of productizing, > support infrastructure and evolution to state-of-the-art technologies > > that make it even more appealing. > > Organizations choose products because they solve problems for them! > Standards are important but not essential to success! > > Since the core Open VistA system was released, what new features, > packages, enhancements, etc. have been contributed by the Open Source > > community to take it to the next level, that is, a whole new version? > > Wouldn't it be better to concentrate on improving the state of this > important product (nationally important) rather than wasting time on > adding minor details to the underlying language? > > I don't buy the argument that VistA won't be accepted because there > isn't a standards body behind the underlying technology. It won't be > accepted because it is hard to install, it is inadequately > documented, > some of the modules still rely upon a roll-and-scroll interface, etc. > > These are the important priorities! > > Terry L. Wiechmann > 978-779-0257 > > > 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ===== A practical man is a man who practices the errors of his forefathers. --Benjamin Disraeli ==== Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- 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
