On 9 Oct 2009 09:34:42 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: ><Lots of good performance improvement comments snipped> > >One more time, > Have you created either a SHARE requirement or a marketing REQUEST for any >of the specific compiler changes to get performance improvements in >Enterprise COBOL (specifically those using higher ALS instructions)? > >If not, why not? > >I suppose you might think that IBM should constantly be looking at the >generated object code from the compiler looking for performance >improvements. Again, this might be nice, but it is highly unlikely to >happen. > >If, on the other hand, you have specific suggestions and you submit them to >IBM via any of the numerous ways of making such suggestions, then they MIGHT >get into the development stream. > >Especially, when you include wording (like that snipped) that included, > "this might be worth paying for a version upgrade" > >P.S. Just because it was in part of the "snipped" notes, > IBM has given a positive response to the SHARE requirement for adding DFP >support to COBOL. > They have, however, rejected adding BFP support. > They tout inoperability with Java. Then instead of recognizing a base data type of Java (and the more standard floating point for newer software) which can be done merely by implementing the 2002 Usages as IEEE and leaving COMP-1 and COMP-2 for hex floating point, they come up with resource consuming kludge of translating back and forth complete with potential for error in some cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
