This article provides a great argument to why a tried-and-tested database like the one provided in GT.M is a better solution than the trendy, buzzword-compliant, Johnny-come-lately industry darling of the day. If a social networking package finds MongoDB’s consistency problems unacceptable, imagine the disaster lurking for its use in the kinds of apps currently being supported with MUMPS databases! Also, the problems inherent in querying these kinds of databases for any but the most simple set of predicates is barely even covered.
While one could argue that MUMPS suffers from a lack of sex appeal that keeps it a little-known and oft-ridiculed language, let’s remember that the resilience of our flagship VistA–in spite of its mother agency’s constant and concerted efforts to kill it–is in large part due to the small and dedicated community that has built up around supporting and improving it. Perhaps we should entertain the idea that a smaller, more focused community of good people is better for our language and its applications than a large and well-known group, which would invariably be fated to follow the unstable and expensive path dictated by the wiles of a fickle and short-sighted industry.
Long story short, we should focus on improving the existing MUMPS language and database, and be extremely careful to avoid being distracted by the lure of bright, shiny objects. There are no silver bullets, and anything that sounds too good to be true probably is.