[image: Mic Drop] On Apr 3, 2016 20:53, "David Crayford" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4/04/2016 7:41 AM, John McKown wrote: >> >> >> I'm not an application programmer. But I can just imagine the looks of >> astonishment and the "talk", if I were to write a COBOL program which does >> a SORT verb with INPUT PROCEDURE IS and OUTPUT PROCEDURE IS which only did >> a SORT FIELDS=COPY operation. Even more astonishment if I coded the INCLUDE >> or EXCLUDE to subset my data in addition to, or instead of, using COBOL >> code. I don't know if such coding would pass the majority of the "peer >> review" type processes. I'd love to try. Especially if I were smart enough >> to do so initially and keep the output listing. Then allow code review to >> force me to use normal COBOL methods. And then show the differences, >> assuming the SORT method actually is superior. Of course, I'd better know >> my management. I was at one shop (sysprog) where my boss (sysprog + >> manager) did that with a major application that would max the 3083 (long >> ago). Basically he proved it was due a flawed design. Unfortunately, that >> cost him him his job because the design was actually done by the head of >> the company (software development company). >> > > I'm sure the application folks would thinks you're a crazy, performance obsessed systems programmer and should go back to your cave!
And they'd be right! And they do, sometimes. But, my management would adore it __IF IT COULD BE DONE RELIABLY BY THE REGULAR PROGRAMMERS__. Why? Because more than __anything__ else at present, they want to decrease the cost of I.T. (They consider it a "money pit" and seem to emotionally consider it to be an "unnecessary" expense which is not really related to the core business) . So if a technique, if consistently applied, would allow them to reduce the MSU cap, thus reducing our software bill, they want it to be done. I was typing more, but really got way too sarcastic. > FileManager was developed at the IBM APC labs in Perth. I worked with one of the lead developers on that product and they try to utilize DFSORT as much as possible. > There must be significant man years of work optimizing the I/O in DFSORT. It's sensible to try and leverage that. In the case of Andrews I/O bound product he could possibly > significantly accelerate the throughput if he could somehow hook into sort. Is it a big deal that DFSORT doesn't run on a zIIP when most of the workload is I/O bound? > > http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSXJAV_13.1.0/com.ibm.filemanager.doc_13.1/base/funtips.htm > > LOL! IBM had to write a FASTREXX subset because standard REXX was a dog! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
