Unlike Jim Self, I've never had occasion to review the source code of
GT.M but I do not doubt that it is very well written. Compiling a
dynamic language like MUMPS does, of course, does pose special
challenges due to its dynamic nature. If I can invoke a routine
indirectly (by name) at run-time what are my options? Two obvious
alternatives that suggest themselves are compiling to an intermediate
representation (like Parrot from the Perl 6 project) or to rely on some
combination of thunking and just in time compilation. Nevertheless, it
should be possible to compile and run existing code. XECUTE statements,
of course, are used to executed MUMPS source that is specified at
run-time and so isn't really amenable to the same shortcuts as
indirection.

That being said, it is not obvious to me that there is any technical
reason that existing compiled code could not be linked with VistA
components written in a newer version of the language, and hence the
requirement to not break existing code does not imply that the language
has to be frozen in time. Thus, it seems to me that the backward
compatibility argument is really a red herring, and the truth is that
there is little interest in developing a new version of the language.
That's fine, of course, but *I* am not particularly interested in
porting MUMPS to new platforms if there is little interest in updating
the language.


===
Gregory Woodhouse  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"Design quality doesn't ensure success, but design failure can ensure failure."

--Kent Beck








-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members

Reply via email to