|
|
Posted by Dan Guzman on 07/16/07 00:43
> 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 you can probably guess, MUMPS can be a developer's worst nightmare.
Anecdotal evidence:
http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/A_Case_of_the_MUMPS.aspx
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"raylopez99" <raylopez99@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1184529982.384234.39370@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> 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]
|