Mike Preece wrote: > Calling a subroutine does not have a major performance hit. In my techno-babble-without-conviction, I explained what hits you can potentially see. Calling a subroutine, as I explained in my techno-babble-without-conviction has relatively little overhead, but the initialization of the things in the subroutine DO have overhead and it adds up quickly. Your general statement doesn't make much sense as calling a subroutine that just does the READ is pointless; ipso facto there will be overhead. > Having all > of your IO going through the same IO subroutines has tremendous > benefits that outweigh that negligible cost in terms of performance > degradation. In my techno-babble-without-conviction I explained and acknowledged the reasons for using such techniques already. However, it seesm you were too ddunk to read it. > In other words, you could not have been more wrong.. Look man, I wrote the compiler that lays down the code to call subroutines - give me some credit for knowing something about the overheads of calling a subroutine. > etc. > And as for the "vaguely insulting" jibe - pots and kettles. > Except I still seem to have plenty of work (and at one point I was going to ask you about some), whereas you are seem to be begging for work on my list, then slagging me off on the same list for reasons. That seems like a wise idea Mike, I suggest you invade Russia this winter.
Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Please read the posting guidelines at: http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE/web/Posting%20Guidelines IMPORTANT: Type T24: at the start of the subject line for questions specific to Globus/T24 To post, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jBASE?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
