[Default] On 19 Dec 2016 06:34:59 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Peter Vander Woude) wrote:
>John, > >Tell them that their cobol routine will probably run around 11 times longer >than the current assembler routine. > >Our programmers used to use a cobol to read in a file, for ebcdic to ascii >translation, and then this subprogram would be called for each record to >convert from ebcdic to ascii. The job steps calling that routine spent over >90% of their cpu time in that subprogram. > >I re-wrote into hlasm, and eliminated at least 80-90% of the cpu time, just >due to the efficiencies that the assembler code management of the data in a >table, have vs cobol. I will lay odds that I could come up with the appropriate COBOL that is virtually as fast and if allowed to be inline far faster due to not having call overhead. COBOL based on the 1985 standard has some really good constructs that take advantage of various things like the translate instruction. Now if IBM would implement all of the data types in the 2002 and later standards including USAGE BIT and the various IEEE fixed binary, floating point binary and floating point decimal types. Clark Morris > >Of course, if they don't care about performance, that's their choice, however, >they should use the routines supplied by microfocus as those will most likely >be written in a higher performing language than cobol is in the type of data >manipulation that your hlasm routine is using. > >BTW, how much space are your SAN people complaining about? > >Peter > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
