# MUMPS 76 interpreter

Hacker Approved page: https://hackerapproved.com/p/mumps/

5 people recommended MUMPS 76 interpreter in Hacker News comments, 5 had mixed feelings and 7 criticized it, November 2025 to October 2026. It was recommended in 3 of 12 months, in 3 threads. It does not meet the Hacker Approved badge rule.

4 of the 5 people who recommend it commented in one thread, “The MUMPS 76 Primer – anniversary edition”.

**Verdict:** Criticized more than recommended: critics warn it is dated and a poor choice for learners; those who recommend it cite a faithful, simple, procedural implementation of the original 1976 MUMPS standard, preserving how it felt.

Summary written by Claude from the comments below.

## What people warn about

- Poor career choice for newcomers (3 comments in the sample): "I would definitely not suggest COBOL or MUMPS to a 20 year old" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48987824)) "You won’t be able to learn the industry best practices or the modern tools, because MUMPS predates them" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48987600)) "The opportunity cost of working with MUMPS is enormous, particularly for someone early in their career." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49082890))
- Widely called terrible language design (3 comments in the sample): "As a programming language, it’s truly terrible in ways that languages like COBOL and FORTRAN are not." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45885039)) "how terrible it is to work with in the 2000s" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48707831)) "feels worse than both raw asm and apl" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48714060))
- Legacy code is hard to escape (2 comments in the sample): "there's so much legacy code written in the old style that you have to learn to read and write it anyway" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48710661)) "legacy stuff runs on MUMPS which is equally old and arguably even worse" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49864431))

## Why people recommend it

- Simple, readable, procedural code (3 comments in the sample): "MUMPS code is more readable than most languages, it’s very simple and procedural." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708592)) "There are tons of problems with this, but the simplicity is comfy." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49349259)) "MUMPS is easy to read, understand and maintain when written well." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708633))
- Well-designed system and concepts (2 comments in the sample): "It is a neat language but even more so a neat overall system and bag of concepts" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48707119)) "It seems very well thought out" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48715372))
- Still runs real systems (2 comments in the sample): "many MUMPS based systems are still in operation and maintenance today" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48708064)) "massive hospitals with thousands of patients run on MUMPS" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48707587))

## The badge

A product earns the Hacker Approved badge when at least 10 people recommend it, recommenders outnumber critics at least 2 to 1 (mixed feelings count toward neither side), it was recommended in at least 4 of the 12 months and in at least 5 different threads, and no single thread supplies more than half of the people who recommend it. Health and money products are never badged.

## Cite as

Hacker Approved, "MUMPS 76 interpreter", https://hackerapproved.com/p/mumps/ (5 recommend, 5 mixed, 7 criticize; Hacker News comments, November 2025 to October 2026).

Counts updated 2 Nov 2026, with data through October 31, 2026.