Well, trust but verify, right? Unfortunately, it gets a bit complicated when the changes that need to be tested in the compiler come at a version level. Once you have ordered a new version, you have a year to migrate off the old version, or IBM begins charging you for running both. So, testing and gathering the evidence, if you will, of problems with compiled code becomes a bit of a gamble - will IBM get it corrected before the time runs out?
We canceled our upgrade here for several reasons, one of which was that fixes kept being released for items that seemed beneficial but needed to be tested - we just ran out of time. We'll try again with 5.2 sometime next year. Regards, Greg Shirey Ben E. Keith Company -----Original Message----- From: Timothy Sipples [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 3:03 AM Subject: Re: COBOL V5.x and CSP descendants was Re: New and improved IBM migration recommendations for COBOL V5 <snip> On this compiler a hypothetical NUMPROC(MIG) could well be worse! I trust the compiler designers' judgment on this performance question especially since they seem to have reviewed this issue. <snip> If you have performance benchmarking data that support your assertion that CSP, VisualAge Generator, and EGL customers must "put up with bad performance" after migrating to Enterprise COBOL 5.2, please show it. I'm sure the compiler team would be grateful to receive your data and will seriously evaluate it. There are no politics here, no hidden agenda, honestly. Minds are open. But so far as I am aware, IBM would assert the opposite. If you don't have such performance data, or if your performance data show something different than what you asserted, it would also be most welcome to hear that, too. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
