×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
I believe you'll find that RPG use of MI is also via builtin and not function call :)
Bruce
Jon Paris <Jon.Paris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10-Dec-07, at 1:00 PM, James Lampert wrote:
My predecessors had already done
much to both optimize it and make it more readable, but I still
ended up
spending over a year going through it, one subroutine at a time, to
optimize it for space, speed, and maintainability.
This got me thinking. Has anyone here done any tests to compare the
execution speed of MI programs vs comparable C programs? IBM doesn't
write in MI any more and by sticking with MI you lose most of the
optimization options that are available to ILE programs. The vast
majority of MI instructions are surfaced in the C compiler and if I
recall correctly are not called as functions (as they would be if
called from RPG) but replaced by in-line code streams which should be
a lot more efficient.
C code has to be a lot more maintainable than MI and there are many
more tools to work with it.
SO is there really any reason to use MI for new code? Does it really
perform any better?
Jon Paris
www.Partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
_______________________________________________
This is the MI Programming on the AS400 / iSeries (MI400) mailing list
To post a message email: MI400@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/mi400
or email: MI400-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at
http://archive.midrange.com/mi400.
Bruce
Bruce Vining Services
507-206-4178
midrange.com
