|
Noooooooooooooooo ! Never ever sacrifice readability and maintainability for performance unless it is absolutely the only answer left.
Besides - If you use optimization then the smaller the "bits" the more it can do for you to improve performance. It will literally move code around to ensure that routines that operate together are in memory together.
Talking of optimization - using optimization based on run-time performance collection data can also have a big impact.
On 2013-01-04, at 4:43 AM, rpg400-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I would also reduce the number of jumps in the program, i.e. reduce theJon Paris
number of functions / subroutines, put more into one, it's messy, but
should gain some speed. Keep the most frequently used functions /
subroutines closer to the body of the program.
Use program optimization.
www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
