You've made this exact point before about two years ago with Tom Ross (among others) in the loop.
To repeat, we have a different compiler now with different technology. You simply cannot assume that a hypothetical NUMPROC(MIG) in the new compiler would offer better performance. It did in the past on a different compiler, but that doesn't matter. This isn't your father's or grandfather's compiler. THIS IS A DIFFERENT COMPILER TECHNOLOGY with different (better) performance behaviors. On this compiler a hypothetical NUMPROC(MIG) could well be worse! I trust the compiler designers' judgment on this performance question especially since they seem to have reviewed this issue. As a reminder, there are no compatibility issues here. CSP, VisualAge Generator, and EGL programs all work great with the new Enterprise COBOL 5.x compilers. (Another reminder: Upgrade from CSP and VisualAge Generator to current EGL, please. EGL is IBM supported.) I think we would have heard a lot of screaming if that weren't true since we're now years into the Version 5.x series of new COBOL compilers. If you have performance benchmarking data that support your assertion that CSP, VisualAge Generator, and EGL customers must "put up with bad performance" after migrating to Enterprise COBOL 5.2, please show it. I'm sure the compiler team would be grateful to receive your data and will seriously evaluate it. There are no politics here, no hidden agenda, honestly. Minds are open. But so far as I am aware, IBM would assert the opposite. If you don't have such performance data, or if your performance data show something different than what you asserted, it would also be most welcome to hear that, too. It is EXTREMELY common that IBM removes particular former performance-related parameters as technology and time marches on when those parameters no longer yield performance benefits, or worse. This is a good thing! Start with assuming they got this decision right and that they know a great deal more than either one of us about the performance characteristics of the new compiler, but go ahead and run some benchmarks (if you haven't already) and report back. "Trust but verify," as a former U.S. president famously said. Otherwise this is kind of like complaining about a vendor who removes a hypothetical ARMSEEK(MIG) performance-related parameter related to disk arm movement when you're now accessing flash storage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Sipples IT Architect Executive, Industry Solutions, IBM z Systems, AP/GCG/MEA E-Mail: [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
