On 09/04/11 23:57, David Jordan wrote: >>From my observations, I don't quite agree on Tony's summation of Cache vs U2. >> Cache has the same burden as U2 in that they came from mumps where U2 came >>from Pick. The biggest difference between Cache and U2 is marketing where >>Cache takes on RDBMS and U2 is apologetic for being Pick, but that is not the >>issue with the technology. Cache is a multi dimensional platform, the same >>as Pick but in a slightly different way. U2 has SQL just as much as Cache, >>I have applications written in U2 that have SQL tables and SQL grants and can >>be accessed with SQL queries. If Cache can sell itself as an SQL database, >>then so can U2 they are both in the same boat. Whilst I think some of >>Cache's technology is clever in their object model, people need to consider >>some issues with Cache. Check that the ATOMic transaction model is what you >>expect. U2 complies to the standards, when I looked at Cache, I don't >>believe that they did. Also consider the continuity of the company, what i s > the future of Intersystems when the founder exits, where Rocket is a more > established business that is not so dependent on key managers.
To which I'll add, if Cache owes its MV-ness to any particular variant, it's jBase. Intersystems took on Jim Idle when he left jBase/Temenos, as far as I am aware to write a MV-Basic compiler. But don't quote me on that. So there is real MV input into Cache, despite it not originally coming from that particular stable (btw, MUMPS, like Pick, is a string-oriented system - though I dunno where it's gone since then). Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
