> there is a real thing to discuss behind all those stories, IMHO. Due to > pipelining issues the proper order of instructions in the instruction stream > becomes more important for modern hardware, and that is something that a > human coder cannot do as good as a good optimizing compiler can. So I > believe that ASSEMBLER programming will stay for some amount of time, because > it is still important to manage those old application systems that are > still around and working well, and it will continue to be important for some > systems level work, but for application programming and new > development, the future is elsewhere.
I'm sure that an optimizing compiler can do an amazing job, but in this case it was Enterprise COBOL vs handcoded Assembler. I have a hard time believing that COBOL is faster than assembler in any scenario. Enterprise COBOL is our 'main' programming language and I haven't seen it perform any optimization worth mentioning (even with OPTIMIZE(FULL)). The current compiler still generates virtually the same code as it's predecessors did many versions ago. Which means it is unforunate that Angel isn't able to post the code. Something must be awfully wrong with the assembler code if it is twice as slow as the Enterprise COBOL code... Fred! ----------------------------------------------------------------- ATTENTION: The information in this electronic mail message is private and confidential, and only intended for the addressee. Should you receive this message by mistake, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or use of this message is strictly prohibited. Please inform the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or opening it. Messages and attachments are scanned for all viruses known. If this message contains password-protected attachments, the files have NOT been scanned for viruses by the ING mail domain. Always scan attachments before opening them. -----------------------------------------------------------------
