http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
I think MUMPS in lisp would rock and give lisp some db punch!
I know prolog was implemented in lisp and APL in scheme so how about a
database language?
On Jan 19, 1:52 am, gavino <·········@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
>
> I think MUMPS in lisp would rock and give lisp some db punch!
That's an interesting link, thanks.
> I know prolog was implemented in lisp and APL in scheme so how about a
> database language?
Great! When will you release it? :)
Leslie
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:52:05 -0800 (PST), gavino <·········@gmail.com>
wrote:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
>
>I think MUMPS in lisp would rock and give lisp some db punch!
>
>I know prolog was implemented in lisp and APL in scheme so how about a
>database language?
Having actually used MUMPS I would say something much different than
"it rocks". I remember it as a write-only language ... simple to use
but very difficult to debug. Lisp is a much better language. What
value do you think MUMPS would bring?
Lisp already has implementations of and interfaces to virtually every
type of database that exists. Though I can't find a hierarchical
database (as in MUMPS) searching just now, I'm sure that one or more
exist somewhere.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:52:05 -0800 (PST), gavino <·········@gmail.com>
> wrote:
...
> Lisp already has implementations of and interfaces to virtually every
> type of database that exists. Though I can't find a hierarchical
> database (as in MUMPS) searching just now, I'm sure that one or more
> exist somewhere.
>
> George
> --
> for email reply remove "/" from address
postgresql allows for hierarchical table structures, and lisp has an interface
(i think it's called pg, IIRC).
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 05:45:03 +0000, vanekl <·····@acd.net> wrote:
>George Neuner wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:52:05 -0800 (PST), gavino <·········@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>...
>> Lisp already has implementations of and interfaces to virtually every
>> type of database that exists. Though I can't find a hierarchical
>> database (as in MUMPS) searching just now, I'm sure that one or more
>> exist somewhere.
>>
>> George
>> --
>> for email reply remove "/" from address
>
>postgresql allows for hierarchical table structures, and lisp has an interface
>(i think it's called pg, IIRC).
Postgres's hierarchical tables aren't quite the same. In MUMPS the
table itself is a 2 dimensional linked list structure:
tables
|- table1
|------- col1 - col2 - ... - coln
| | | |
|- rec1 - <data 1,1> - <data 1,2> - ... - <data 1,n>
| | | |
|- rec2 - <data 2,1> - <data 2,2> - ... - <data 2,n>
| | | |
|- :
| | | |
|- recm - <data m,1> - <data m,2> - ... - <data m,n>
A record is a linked list of disk pages containing field data. Each
data item is also linked into a separate list headed by attribute.
Several fields may share a page so the links between them are of the
form page#:offset rather than a more typical file offset to the item.
MUMPS is really a network database (in the DB topology meaning of
"network" ... not the LAN/WAN meaning) which happens to impose a
hierarchical organization rather than allow a more general graph
structure.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
??>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
??>>
??>> I think MUMPS in lisp would rock and give lisp some db punch!
??>>
??>> I know prolog was implemented in lisp and APL in scheme so how about a
??>> database language?
GN> Having actually used MUMPS I would say something much different than
GN> "it rocks". I remember it as a write-only language ... simple to use
GN> but very difficult to debug. Lisp is a much better language. What
GN> value do you think MUMPS would bring?
GN> Lisp already has implementations of and interfaces to virtually every
GN> type of database that exists. Though I can't find a hierarchical
GN> database (as in MUMPS) searching just now, I'm sure that one or more
GN> exist somewhere.
i don't think MUMPS as language is valuable, but database stuff they have is
quite interesting IMHO.
sutff like SQL and ORM/object persistent are popular nowadays, but they are
overkill for many purposes. MUMPS style persistent multidimensional arrays
might be a better solution.
i suspect M-style data storage is not that popular because there are no
simple, "no bullshit" implementations.
at least i was not able to find solution for C/C++ when i was starting a new
project -- only thing i've found was complete M implemented in C++, that was
quite fat, and it used BDB iirc.
it's overkill to include thing like this into a small project (just like
it's overkill to use SQL..). i've hacked my own little storage thingie which
used file system for storage -- i.e. when you write
db["invoices"][315]["date"] it was reading file invoices/315/date. however
later i had to replace it with embedded SQL..
gavino <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS
>
> I think MUMPS in lisp would rock and give lisp some db punch!
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Classics-Week-A-Case-of-the-MUMPS.aspx
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__
·························@anevia.com
http://www.anevia.com