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: Pete Dashwood on 26 Sep 2007 22:24 "Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message news:se4mf3tgn2dgovc7dke6t2a1t97i4s1ovi(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:03:39 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> > wrote: > >> >> >>"Robert" <no(a)e.mail> wrote in message >>news:b7tlf3hifb1qfde4trikpetrel84gs08ro(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:36:42 -0400, "Charles Hottel" >>> <chottel(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>>I was in somewhat of a hurry when I converted Roberts program to use my >>>>mainframe timer routine. Looking at the TIMER-OFF: >>>> >>>> TIMER-OFF. >>>> PERFORM READ-THE-TIME >>>> COMPUTE ELAPSED-TIME ROUNDED = >>>> ((TIME-NOW - TIME-START) - TIMER-OVERHEAD) /1000000 >>>> >>>> IF ELAPSED-TIME NOT GREATER THAN ZERO >>>> MOVE 'ERROR' TO ELAPSED-TIME-DISPLAY >>>> ELSE >>>> COMPUTE ELAPSED-TIME-EDITED ROUNDED = ELAPSED-TIME * 10 >>>> END-IF >>>> DISPLAY TEST-NAME ELAPSED-TIME-DISPLAY >>>> >>>>My timing routine computes the time in microseconds since the task >>>>started. >>>> >>>>The ELAPSED-TIME-EDITED is ELAPSED-TIME multiplied by 10, so I think all >>>>of >>>>the times I published may be 10 times higher than the actual elasped >>>>time. >>>>I >>>>am somewhat skeptical of measuring actual times on a mainframe without >>>>repeating the tests six to ten times and computing an average, variance >>>>and/or standard deviation. I did not spend much time thinking about >>>>whether >>>>to remove that COMPUTE because to me it was the relative speeds that >>>>were >>>>important. Also I did not analyze Roberts timing method or the rationale >>>>for >>>>this COMPUTE because my past experience using his timing method showed >>>>it >>>>was grossly inaccurate on a mainframe (the task gets swapped out, put >>>>into >>>>a >>>>wait state, but the time of day clock keeps on ticking). Sorry I guess I >>>>was >>>>lazy, and my only excuse is that I am still far from being 100% of my >>>>old >>>>self lately. >>> >>> My objective was to express duration as a two digit number, for easy >>> comprehension. >>> The numbers displayed are wall clock seconds times 10. >> >>While I'm all in favour of a simple display (I haven't checked Roger's >>version because it is too much hassle combing through the output, it >>cannot >>be easily compared to other runs, and I have neither time nor inclination >>to >>amend the code to do the calculations in the program), I question whether >>the numbers displayed are wall clock seconds times 10, Robert. As my run >>gave a result of 22 or so for subscripts, that would mean the job ran for >>at >>least 220 seconds. It didn't run anything like that. I didn't actually >>time >>it, but it was not more than a few seconds of elapsed time. If I get a >>chance later today, I'll run it again and time it. > > Ah, innumeracy. I said TIMES 10, not divided by 10. Run time of 2.2 > seconds times 10 > equals 22. Thanks. I misinterpreted what you wrote. Sorry. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: LX-i on 26 Sep 2007 23:38 Pete Dashwood wrote: > Obviously, generated code makes all the difference. Here's code from 2 > compilers running in the same OS Environment, yet look at the figures for > subscripts; the P4 creams the Core 2, although the Core 2 is theoretically > faster. In fact, the P4 is faster on everything except the null test :-) And > both systems are way faster than IBM mainframes. (That still hasn't quite > sunk in yet; after working on mainframes for decades it is hard for me to > realize that a notebook costing < .01% of what a mainframe costs, could be > orders of magnitude faster...) I determined that, at our office, when someone posted that KJV parse-and-count coding challenge. It ran on my PC (using Fujitsu 5) in about 37 seconds. It took over 20 minutes to run on our development mainframe! I pointed that out to the "powers that be" but they didn't find it nearly as interesting. I guess *they* weren't the ones waiting 20+ minutes for a compile (for a few of the larger programs)... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~ ~ _ /\ | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~ ~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~ ~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~ ~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++ "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
From: LX-i on 26 Sep 2007 23:46 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:09:36 +1200, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> Apparently Bill Gates showed a Windows machine that did a cold boot in 14 >> seconds. He claims it is not Windows that slows the boot down. > > My wife's Mac boots that fast. But part of Windows is checking > drivers for all of the different options that a Windows machine has. > Part of Windows is the cost of having the flexibility to run diverse > hardware. My laptop is running Ubuntu Linux, and before that I had Windows Vista 64-bit. Both OS's took about the same time to display a login screen (just under a minute, unless it's the 21st time I've booted Linux and it forces a fsck on my main hard drive). However, when I enter my user name and password, it's about 10 seconds before I can do something with Ubuntu - with Vista, it was 3-4 minutes! (Granted, I'm sure I didn't have the hardware that Vista wanted - there wasn't a video driver for my system, which is what drove me to replace it in the first place. More RAM would probably help too - I've got 1.25GB.) In Gates's defense, when I was running XP, it would boot pretty quickly - much more quickly than my computer at work, which had equivalent hardware. I didn't have a virus scanner, I wasn't applying group policies, etc... -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~ ~ _ /\ | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~ ~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~ ~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~ ~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++ "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
From: Anonymous on 27 Sep 2007 05:32 In article <1u1mf314bahp475dd8jps22lja4ahelm8u(a)4ax.com>, Robert <no(a)e.mail> wrote: [snip] >Because the most common decision >processes are based on >emotion rather than logic. If this is the case, Mr Wagner, and if it is your desire to have an effect on a decision process you believe to be among the 'most common' then it would appear that you might conclude an appeal to emotion might be the most effective manner to accomplish this. DD
From: Judson McClendon on 27 Sep 2007 07:55
"LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote: > > My laptop is running Ubuntu Linux, and before that I had Windows Vista 64-bit. Both OS's took about the same time to display a > login screen (just under a minute, unless it's the 21st time I've booted Linux and it forces a fsck on my main hard drive). > However, when I enter my user name and password, it's about 10 seconds before I can do something with Ubuntu - with Vista, it was > 3-4 minutes! I've downloaded Ubuntu, but haven't done more than play with it a bit. Is it really a viable alternative for those currently doing serious work in Windows? For example, what about my investment in Win32 compilers? Is the Windows emulation good enough to compile and test using MF Net Express? I would be very surprised if Visual Studio or MS Office runs. Though Unix clones of MS Office might be fine for everyday use, what if you are creating Office applications? For good or ill, the vast majority of potential clients out there are running Windows and Windows apps. Any comments? -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." |