|
|
Posted by raylopez99 on 07/15/07 20:06
On Jul 15, 10:04 am, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>
> ^^
> Color *me* impressed. Have they got a version of MUMPS that
> works with a SQL back-end now? (God, I hope not; I've heard
> horror stories about MUMPS.)
Mumps, according to Wikipedia: "In MUMPS syntax, some spaces are
significant; they are not merely whitespace. There are contexts in
which a pair of spaces has a different syntactic significance than a
single space" Wow! Amazing, firs time I've ever heard of this
archaic language!
>
> As for Ray Lopez, the reason to use an RDBMS rather than "one
> big fat flat file" is the same reason to use an optimizing
> compiler rather than hand-hacking assembler, i.e. in many
> applications the small increase in execution time is outweighed
> by a large decrease in development and maintenance time. If
> you need things like data integrity, indexes, and transactions
> anyway, then why re-invent those wheels?
Good point. For transactions, SQL rules, like FORTRAN does in certain
scientific circles.
RL
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|