----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Rehm" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > > >Strings are defined as a class. All string functions, including "copy" > >execute as calls to methods of the string class. In RPG the copy of a > >string executes as a single MI CPYBLAP instruction. In C++ the same copy > >will execute as a function call, memory alloc, byte by byte copy. Much more > >cpu is needed. > > > I'd sure advocate faster processors, but I seem to disagree with your > logic here. I don't think a faster processor is the only solution to a > poor compiler. I'd prefer that the software guys tie the C++ string copy > to the MI instruction used by RPG. > Encapsulating a string in a class enables techniques like automatic type conversion ( ascii to ebcdic to unicode ), all the other string functions ( scan, replace, concat ). Cpu is cheap ( or it should be ). ( Also the C++ template functionality works well with classes and functions ) > > > I think there is a difference between "consumed" and "needed" and it > might not be that it is all needed here. Maybe standard C++ and Java > libraries should rely on MI instructions. Otherwise it seems like you > are saying, "See, when I used it like a PC server it isn't as good as a > PC server." Once you start trying to optimize and mix programing models you really start to muck things up. Either program the RPG way or the OOP way. Steve Richter
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.