Re: What good is ILE?

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To say a little more - there was brief thread on this back in 2007, I 
see - changes for the sake of performance often are of benefit only with 
lots of CALLs or whatever process is involved - like millions of records 
in a single job. David Gibbs pointed that out in reply to a similar 
comment by me.

So benefits perhaps lie more in maintainability and the like - and that 
does require some front-end effort to get the benefit, and I don't know 
any studies on that - it is often said that it is going to be better.

Regards
Vern

On 2/3/2013 10:19 PM, rpglist@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Vernon,
> I am not the original poster on this, but I have a follow up question, you mentioned that compiling a CL as CLLE gives you a performance boost..... Can you explain this further?
>
> On Feb 3, 2013, at 9:59 PM, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
>
> > I don't see your name, so this essentially anonymous -but I'll mention
> > one thing
> >
> > Maintenance. How many places do you have the same code in many of them?
> > Of course, we shouldn't do that, but we probably do. When a change is
> > needed, there is just one place - the service program - that needs changing.
> >
> > Now YMMV - depends on a number of things, one of which I hinted at above.
> >
> > The other answers to this have been around the world many times -
> > anything related to more structured, modular programming techniques,
> > applies to this question.
> >
> > You mention all these "binding" things - I find that it is a bit of FUD
> > just to list them. Once you've set up bindery language, you're done, and
> > additions are easy to do. Statid vs dynamic vs  by reference - you
> > basically choose one, and you're done again.
> >
> > Another one? Object size.
> >
> > Another one? Just compiling CL programs as ILE gives you a great
> > performance boost with almost no effort - great ROI. Why NOT take the
> > low-hanging fruit?
> >
> > Others will have more to add.
> >
> > <not-letting-you-know-this-is-vern>
> >
> > :)
> >
> > On 2/3/2013 7:17 PM, w 4038 wrote:
> > > What good is ILE??
> > >
> > > Before ILE, if you needed to call program B from program A, a simple CALL statement did the job.
> > > All you had to worry about was the library list and it was up to you to pass parameters correctly.
> > >
> > > Then IBM introduced ILE.
> > > Now you can worry about, Activation Groups,Binding Directories, Binder Language, subprocedures, service programs, Static Binding, Dynamic Binding, Bind by Reference and some I can't recall right now.
> > >
> > > Sure, it's nice that the compile checks to ensure that passed parameters match, but what other benefits are there?  The benefit isn't speed. Newer hardware resolves that.
> > > All the complexity just increases the potential for coding errors.
> > >
> > > So I ask great minds of the Midrange List, what good is ILE? 		 	   		
> > --
> > This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> > To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> > visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
> > or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> > at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.