That sounds like a good idea. After many months away, I've begun playing with Mumps again, this time, Kevin O'Kane's pre 1995 standard single threaded legacy interpreter, originally written in Fortran and converted to C. The interpreter's C code is riddled with gotos, but runs very quickly! My main purpose for it, is to work out, the most effective database structure to use with Mumps. Because it only has ASCII collation, I'm left padding number subscripts with zeros e.g. "000000129" rather than 129 to maintain the correct order for numbers. Also an infinite for loop must be written as f 1:1 rather than f followed by two spaces. Extrinsic functions are not implemented. Quite a few intrinsic functions e.g. $Translate are missing, but the ones you really need $Order, $Data, $Piece and $Extract are there. So it's good enough to implement a database in, but, I'm naturally gravitating to a relational structure, because that's what I know. But is that the best way of doing things? If I'm going to end up re-implementing a relational database in Mumps then apart from the learning experience what is the point? I'd like to see in a video, something along the lines of, this is a best of breed database using Mumps along with an explanation of why its superior to relational databases. Obviously, there's Fileman. I think that's how I got interested in VistA, to begin with, after watching this
YouTube video. I'm planning to review what Fileman does after I've spent a bit of time independently playing around with the simplest implementation of Mumps I could find, to get a ground floor understanding of how Mumps works and the best way to use it.
By the way, this might not be the best place to be discussing application development using Mumps (we're supposed to be discussing VistA after all)! If there's another list I should be directing these questions too please advise.