COBOL "non-myth" confirmed - Index and subscripts (MF on Windows)
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: Help with Tcal
Next: COBOL Error Handling (was: What MF says about ROUNDED(was:Cobol Myth Busters
From: Robert on 25 Sep 2007 03:59 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 01:25:51 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote: >Robert wrote: >> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:40:25 -0600, Jeff Campbell <n8wxs(a)arrl.net> wrote: >> >> >>> Here are the results I got: >>> >>> Null test 0 >>> Index 24 >>> Subscript 20 >>> Subscript comp-5 20 >>> Index 1 24 >>> Subscript 1 20 >>> Subscript 1 comp-5 20 >> >> Which CPU? > >Same as before with speed1, an Alpha Personal Workstation 600au >running OpenVMS 7.3-1. Thanks. Does anyone have access to an Itanium? I predict it can run the test five times faster than other CPUs.
From: Anonymous on 25 Sep 2007 05:25 In article <35lgf39gm4180f815ad99hn1b5ku80kd82(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: [snip] >So index is twice as fast as subscript on an IBM mainframe. .... with these particular compiler options and that particular machine configuration and the other load-of-the-moment. Now, Mr Wagner... is one to expect another dreary series of repetitions about how mainframers who said that indices were faster than subscripts were, in fact, right about something? DD
From: Robert on 25 Sep 2007 13:32 On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:25:04 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >In article <35lgf39gm4180f815ad99hn1b5ku80kd82(a)4ax.com>, >Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: > >[snip] > >>So index is twice as fast as subscript on an IBM mainframe. > >... with these particular compiler options and that particular machine >configuration and the other load-of-the-moment. Modern machines have more than one CPU. Activity on other CPUs doesn't affect a timing test THAT much, not like the old days. >Now, Mr Wagner... is one to expect another dreary series of repetitions >about how mainframers who said that indices were faster than subscripts >were, in fact, right about something? I expected I-told-you-so from the mainframe camp.
From: Richard on 25 Sep 2007 17:13 On Sep 26, 5:32 am, Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:25:04 +0000 (UTC), docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >In article <35lgf39gm4180f815ad99hn1b5ku80k...(a)4ax.com>, > >Robert <n...(a)e.mail> wrote: > > >[snip] > > >>So index is twice as fast as subscript on an IBM mainframe. > > >... with these particular compiler options and that particular machine > >configuration and the other load-of-the-moment. > > Modern machines have more than one CPU. Activity on other CPUs doesn't affect a timing > test THAT much, not like the old days. > > >Now, Mr Wagner... is one to expect another dreary series of repetitions > >about how mainframers who said that indices were faster than subscripts > >were, in fact, right about something? > > I expected I-told-you-so from the mainframe camp. Look on the positive side, Robert, at least you got _one_ thing right.
From: Anonymous on 25 Sep 2007 18:45
In article <regif3d0b34nreavsckap09omqjhptnik8(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:25:04 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: > >>In article <35lgf39gm4180f815ad99hn1b5ku80kd82(a)4ax.com>, >>Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>So index is twice as fast as subscript on an IBM mainframe. >> >>... with these particular compiler options and that particular machine >>configuration and the other load-of-the-moment. > >Modern machines have more than one CPU. Activity on other CPUs doesn't >affect a timing >test THAT much, not like the old days. Mr Wagner, unlike other folks I try to qualify statements and observations with the data known or assumed at the time of their making. Some folks consider the qualifications relevant, others don't. > >>Now, Mr Wagner... is one to expect another dreary series of repetitions >>about how mainframers who said that indices were faster than subscripts >>were, in fact, right about something? > >I expected I-told-you-so from the mainframe camp. It may be interesting to see if you get one; my point - and pardon the obscure manner of its making - was that you made a series of repetitions which a demonstration has disproved and it may be interesting to see if an equally lengthy series of repetitions follows... or if it just Goes Away until you next get an idea about something... and begin another, similar series of repetitions. DD |