Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

12
  • related (possibly a duplicate): Is there a correlation between the scale of the project and the strictness of the language? Commented Sep 12, 2015 at 13:42
  • 2
    @gnat Are you saying that the answer is "use different processes and other heavyweight stuff"? I mean, that's probably not wrong, but it's also over-general to the point of not being particularly useful. Commented Sep 12, 2015 at 16:43
  • 3
    Honestly, I don't think there is an answer to this other than "switch to a language where variables actually have scoping rules" or "use the bastard stepchild of Hungarian notation where every variable is prefixed by its file and/or method name rather than type or kind". The issue you describe is just so terrible I can't imagine a good solution. Commented Sep 12, 2015 at 18:27
  • 1
    @DocBrown Obviously nobody's going to do greenfield development in MUMPS (dear god, at least I hope not), but if you're stuck with an enormous codebase, you've got to make do with what you've got. (Aside: porting off of MUMPS in particular is further complicated by the fact that MUMPS is also a database system - so even if you port the procedural stuff to another language, you're still going to need some amount of core logic/bindings in MUMPS anyway.) Commented Sep 12, 2015 at 22:03
  • 5
    At least you can't accuse MUMPS of false advertising for being named after a nasty disease. Commented Sep 13, 2015 at 0:25