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: Charles Hottel on 18 Sep 2007 19:34 <pgx(a)pgrahams.com> wrote in message news:hjrve3hbgvbe06e474gjt8gdkgnaam5r6h(a)4ax.com... > "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > | I have not had a > |performance problem of any type in the last 20 years. > | > Do you pay for the CPU time our of your own pocket? > > Phil No, but ever since I took a COBOL Efficiencies class long ago I have tried to write reasonably efficient code. It is just as easy to get in the habit of doing that as it is to avoid it until you have to.
From: Robert on 18 Sep 2007 19:43 On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message >news:pabte318v4n344saoq74ifeh7u3t1f8v9n(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:50:53 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >> >>>Most people who use indexes believe it. Why else would they use indexes? >> >> Habit. > >When was the last time anyone posting here ever had a performance problem >whose solution was related to subscripting or indexing? Tell that to the people who use indexes because they THINK speed is a problem and indexes are a solution. Speed is the only reason for using indexes. You showed the premise is false; I showed the solution isn't any faster. They probably aren't convinced by either argument. They'll continue using indexes because .. indexes were faster in the Old Days and that's what they've always done. Welcome to Cobol-land, where thirty years ago seems like yesterday.
From: Judson McClendon on 18 Sep 2007 19:46 "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > > ... Speed is the only reason for using indexes. ... Not entirely. Built in search and index offsets are handy as well. -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
From: William M. Klein on 18 Sep 2007 20:05 "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message news:8sn0f35tq2j9hsrp75rulk5hsfksakvr8m(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" <chottel(a)earthlink.net> > wrote: > <snip> > Tell that to the people who use indexes because they THINK speed is a problem > and indexes > are a solution. Speed is the only reason for using indexes. > <sarcasm intended - generalization noted> Tell the people who use subsripts that they are NEVER faster ( although they might be comparable)- to never use them over indices. Speed is the only rason to use subscripts and that never is provided. -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
From: Anonymous on 18 Sep 2007 20:49
In article <8sn0f35tq2j9hsrp75rulk5hsfksakvr8m(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:37:40 -0400, "Charles Hottel" ><chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >> >>"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message >>news:pabte318v4n344saoq74ifeh7u3t1f8v9n(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:50:53 -0500, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >>> >>>>Most people who use indexes believe it. Why else would they use indexes? >>> >>> Habit. >> >>When was the last time anyone posting here ever had a performance problem >>whose solution was related to subscripting or indexing? > >Tell that to the people who use indexes because they THINK speed is a >problem and indexes >are a solution. When such people start posting here, Mr Wagner, he might do just that. [snip] >They'll continue using indexes >because .. indexes >were faster in the Old Days and that's what they've always done. Welcome >to Cobol-land, >where thirty years ago seems like yesterday. That might be due to the fact that thirty years ago was the last time some of the modules were compiled, perhaps. Anyhow... in my experience, Mr Wagner, that is the case in more places than 'COBOL-land'... more than once I've heard a (n)decade-old person say 'I've thought/done it this way ever since I was a child'... and my internal response is 'How interesting... on the one hand a child came to the conclusions of a person several decades older; a bit precocious, perhaps, but a Good Thing... on the other hand has this person seems to have been unable to learn a new way of seeing/doing in the intervening decades... and that is a sad thing.' DD |