Re: Introducing PlayDB (The Model, The Language, The DBMS)

Juergen,

Since I have been working with Mumps now for quite a while (> 10 years) I can agree with you. Standard implementations of Mumps (e.g. DSM, MSM, DTM, GT.M, etc...) are as you describe.

But, I have to say that although Mumps itself does not have objects - this does not prevent you from using either Intersystems Cache or ESI Objects as the DBMS layered on top of Mumps. Cache and ESI Objects both provide Object access to a Mumps global.

In fact - if you have not looked at Cache, you might be surprised at the capabilities of this system. Using this system, you can now provide both Object and SQL access to your database quite easily. It is - IMHO, worth looking at...

"Juergen Kindler" <jkindler_at_freenet.de> wrote in message news:3FA551BE.1010008_at_freenet.de...
>
>
> Bernard Peek wrote:
>
> > In message <ba87a3cf.0310091820.50180857_at_posting.google.com>, Seun Osewa
> > <seunosewa_at_inaira.com> writes
> >
> >> What if an object could be a member of any arbitrary set of classes?
> >> What if this mapping of object to class was totally dynamic?
> >
> >
> > I asked about such a system a while ago, the concepts you are looking
> > for are multiple-inheritance and dynamic reclassification. I was pointed
> > in the direction of Mumps.
> >
>
>
>
> Sadly enough, Mumps does not support inheritance and also nothing you
> call dynamic reclassification. Mumps is a strictly PROCEDURAL language.
> I've used it for some years (> 5 to be specific).
>
> There are no classes in Mumps. There is even no schema. All there is
> (OK - most notable) is a persistent B* tree that allows for index
> entries that are strings, a strong support of string function and
> some ways to dynamically interpret strings/variables as code.
>
>
> Objects and Mumps are two different worlds ...
>
> Just my 2 cents
> Jürgen
>
Received on Sun Nov 02 2003 - 20:06:10 CET