> Martin Ward wrote:
>> On 29/01/18 22:54, Jon Perryman wrote: >> Is there a PL/X or C feature that could not be implemented in HLASM? > I have already mentioned the automated application of > loop optimisations such as strength reduction, code motion, > Also, local variables in function definitions (and functions, > for that matter!) Yes, compiler optimization is something that HLASM does not provide. We were actually talking about maintainability but that's fine if you want to discuss optimization. Compiler optimization certainly makes code run faster but does C make for a better programmer? How does C optimize MVS C fopen() where the programmer specifies a runtime string? How does C optimize the C XML parser implementation? The problem is that C counter productive techniques. Unix lacks the robust MVS features because of the C language. If something needs to be optimized, we can easily identify them thru Intune and Strobe. While the HLASM may not be as optimized as C, clearly it provides a good balance. Regards, Jon.
