COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: LX-i on 20 Sep 2007 22:31 Robert wrote: > On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:53:29 -0600, LX-i <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > >> You've shown that what used to be significant overhead with subscripts >> is now gone in one particular environment. > > It's gone on all platforms, or soon will be. > >> But, the completeness of >> being able to define an array with (an) index(es) of its' very own >> appeals to some people, who will continue to do it. Using an index >> isn't 1970's COBOL. > > That's true. Indexes were introduced 'recently' in the '74 Standard. My how time flies. PICTURE was introduced in 68, if memory serves - is it obsolete too? Just because something is old doesn't make it obsolete; sometimes its age is a testament to its usefulness. :) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~ ~ _ /\ | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~ ~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~ ~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~ ~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++ "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
From: LX-i on 20 Sep 2007 22:43 Pete Dashwood wrote: > I think there is some concern that some > (many?) Java programmers are moving to C# (it is an easy transition). I'd do it in a heartbeat. :) (Of course, they pay me for Java, so they get Java...) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~ ~ _ /\ | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~ ~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~ ~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~ ~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++ "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
From: Robert on 21 Sep 2007 00:01 On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:15:06 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >news:bhm3f3lhlko53ia8rbjg536gjqc95s344e(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:28:48 -0700, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >> ><snip> >> I posted timing tests showing index and subscript run at the same speed. No >> one has posted >> evidence that indexes are faster. >> > >Did you read the Performance paper for Enterprise COBOL that I have mentioned in >a number of posts? Do you think those timings are not true? I think they were measured 5-10 years ago. > Do you still think >that 70% (or so) of all COBOL runs on IBM mainframes? My first impuse was to say 90%. I lowered it after thinking of all the Peoplesoft and Amdocs code running on Unix. >Again, what am I missing here? > >(No problem with you saying that if a COBOL program is targeted for Micro Focus >on Unix platforms, you have yet to see any evidence that indices are ever FASTER >than subscripts. However, that is all you have demonstrated.) What you're missing are FACTS. We haven't seen results from an IBM mainframe.
From: William M. Klein on 21 Sep 2007 00:21 The performance paper is 5 (and 1/2) years old. It is for V3.1 and IBM is on V3.4. HOWEVER, as I made clear earlier, IBM has indicated that even though the speed (and power) of their mainframes have greatly increased since then, the "relative" performance of code generated by their compilers has not significantly changed. That is why they haven't needed to update their V3.1 performance paper. You just have a hard time accepting that hard evidence DOES exist for the advantage of indices over subscripts in the environment where the majority of COBOL is actually coded and used. Of course, you also point out how they don't "update" things in that environment, so a 5 year old performance paper should certainly reflect current uses. Poor Robert, fact (not opinions) that don't match his are just not worth acknowledging!!! -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message news:g0g6f31u53t36eor0e968a0rvcqarhciu0(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:15:06 GMT, "William M. Klein" > <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: > >>"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >>news:bhm3f3lhlko53ia8rbjg536gjqc95s344e(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:28:48 -0700, Richard <riplin(a)Azonic.co.nz> wrote: >>> >><snip> >>> I posted timing tests showing index and subscript run at the same speed. No >>> one has posted >>> evidence that indexes are faster. >>> >> >>Did you read the Performance paper for Enterprise COBOL that I have mentioned >>in >>a number of posts? Do you think those timings are not true? > > I think they were measured 5-10 years ago. > >> Do you still think >>that 70% (or so) of all COBOL runs on IBM mainframes? > > My first impuse was to say 90%. I lowered it after thinking of all the > Peoplesoft and > Amdocs code running on Unix. > >>Again, what am I missing here? >> >>(No problem with you saying that if a COBOL program is targeted for Micro >>Focus >>on Unix platforms, you have yet to see any evidence that indices are ever >>FASTER >>than subscripts. However, that is all you have demonstrated.) > > What you're missing are FACTS. We haven't seen results from an IBM mainframe.
From: Robert on 21 Sep 2007 01:00
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:21:35 GMT, "William M. Klein" <wmklein(a)nospam.netcom.com> wrote: >The performance paper is 5 (and 1/2) years old. It is for V3.1 and IBM is on >V3.4. HOWEVER, as I made clear earlier, IBM has indicated that even though the >speed (and power) of their mainframes have greatly increased since then, the >"relative" performance of code generated by their compilers has not >significantly changed. That is why they haven't needed to update their V3.1 >performance paper. > >You just have a hard time accepting that hard evidence DOES exist for the >advantage of indices over subscripts in the environment where the majority of >COBOL is actually coded and used. Of course, you also point out how they don't >"update" things in that environment, so a 5 year old performance paper should >certainly reflect current uses. > >Poor Robert, fact (not opinions) that don't match his are just not worth >acknowledging!!! IBM computer engineers see stats similar to those seen by Intel, Sun, AMD and HP engineers. If multiply isn't as fast as load on IBM, it will be soon. I and Richard posted facts showing speed is the same. We have not seen facts from mainframe-land,except a five year old study. Just post some facts and skip the ad homina. |