That reminds me of an old story where someone tried to test the performance of programming languages by coding the following short program in PL/1 and ASSEMBLER (this was on the now historic Telefunken TR 440 hardware):
SUM = 0; DO I = 1 TO 100000; SUM = SUM + I; END; PUT SKIP LIST (SUM); The result was: PL/1 was much much faster, because the optimizing compiler unrolled the loop and completely performed the computation during compile time and simply generated code to print the result. This was the MULTICS PL/1 compiler, which was sold to the Telefunken company and ported to the TR 440. The ASSEMBLER programmer, of course, coded the loop. Kind regards Bernd Am 05.04.2011 08:45, schrieb Martin Trübner:
This is already over, but aside of instruction sequence and use of newer instructions vs older......here is what I thought: qualification of the COBOL-coder vs. the q of the HLASM-person -- Martin Pi_cap_CPU - all you ever need around MWLC/SCRT/CMT in z/VSE more at http://www.picapcpu.de
