|
|
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | There are several major commercial EHRs that use MUMPS. In fact,
| + | #REDIRECT [[Is_Mumps_a_serious_limitation_to_complete_EHR_functionality%2C_code_maintainence%2C_HL7%2C_or_PMS_interfacing%3F]] |
| − | the language was developed expressly FOR the health care
| |
| − | environment. There are far more limitations (and serious ones at
| |
| − | that) in most other languages and especially strict SQL
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Absolutely not. I will go one step further than Cameron.
| |
| − | I have heard that M is the #1 language used for EHR's.
| |
| − | Epicare, which just contracted for EHR for Kaiser, is based
| |
| − | on M, for example.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[User:RickMarshall|Rick Marshall]] replies: | |
| − | | |
| − | How many completely functional EHRs can you name that are not written in
| |
| − | MUMPS, whose functionality even comes close to VistA's? As far as I
| |
| − | know, MUMPS is the only programming system designed specifically for
| |
| − | medical systems development. Standard MUMPS cannot be used to generate
| |
| − | sophisticated graphical interfaces, but it can be used to communicate
| |
| − | with programming languages that do. No language does all things, nor
| |
| − | should, nor can. Programming requires mastery of multiple languages,
| |
| − | and the core language must be carefully chosen. The best reason for
| |
| − | using Standard MUMPS as VistA's core language is that it is decades too
| |
| − | late to do anything else. VistA is already written in Standard MUMPS,
| |
| − | and it took twenty-eight years to get this far. Replacing Standard
| |
| − | MUMPS at this point is an irresponsible waste of resources that could
| |
| − | instead be used to easily extend VistA to save lives. It is like
| |
| − | arguing that brick is passe, so we should shut down New York City for
| |
| − | fifty years so we can remove all the brick and replace it with something
| |
| − | more popular. Replacing Standard MUMPS to improve code maintenance (for
| |
| − | example) is like replacing my DNA so I can learn to play the
| |
| − | flute--unnecessary and irrelevant. Standard MUMPS is VistA's DNA.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Honestly, though, why does anyone who is not a programmer care what it
| |
| − | was written in? What is Mac OS X written in? How about Microsoft
| |
| − | Word? Google? Quicken? The Sims? Do you feel competent to evaluate
| |
| − | which programming language is ideal for a given problem domain? After
| |
| − | twenty-one years of programming practice and study, I do not know beyond
| |
| − | my chosen field of medical software. I certainly do not feel competent
| |
| − | to choose among surgical instruments. I could spend time trying to
| |
| − | teach nontechnical people how to evaluate programming systems enough to
| |
| − | understand why VistA had to be written in Standard MUMPS (something even
| |
| − | most programmers evidently do not understand), or they could spend a
| |
| − | fraction of that time teaching me what they need VistA to do for them.
| |
| − | If I can get VistA to do all those things for them, then in the end who
| |
| − | cares what language it is written in?
| |
