Re: Efficiency or lack thereof

Re: Efficiency or lack thereof

Gray, Alastair

From: Gray, Alastair Subject: Re: Efficiency or lack thereof Date: 19 Jan 2005 01:24:56 -0800 These illustrate perhaps the fundamental issue with coding, what are you coding 'for'? Code for performance Code for elegance Code for error handling Code for simplicity Code for fun .... Code for local knowledge base Whatever your driver, you can always expect to be challenged by someone else on the basis of another. Cheers, Alastair Gray Systems and Storage Type > -----Original Message----- > From: TSO REXX Discussion List > [mailto:TSO-REXX@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Ryerse, Robin > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 10:41 PM > So, if I were given your task, it > would be one rexx exec for everything including re-use of > another exec (function) that allows the caller to define > which FTP errors are worthy of abort. The end result would be > more efficient than the original because after the FTP is > complete, the data should goe through only 3 process: READ, > manipulate, WRITE. > > -----Original Message----- > From: TSO REXX Discussion List > [mailto:TSO-REXX@VM.MARIST.EDU]On Behalf Of Bob Bridges > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 2:36 PM > I think that's it. You can see that the original author > likes SORT, and with good reason. But the replacement > consisted of a single SORT on SSN and a REXX that did all the > other stuff in a single pass. > > I like the simplicity, but a SORT-loving colleague checked > the stats on the new JCL and believes my two steps took about > a CPU second longer to run than the five original steps. I > like interpreted languages, I really do, and REXX is better > than many for speed as well as being truly excellent at > string processing. But I infer it can't stand up to SORT for > efficiency. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For TSO-REXX subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to LISTSERV@VM.MARIST.EDU with the message: INFO TSO-REXX