|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
partha11
New User
Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 4
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Can anyone please tell me How DYL280 is inefficient to COBOL? Or
Why DYL280 takes more CPU time than COBOL codes?
Thanks,
Partha1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DavidatK
Active Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 700
Location: Troy, Michigan USA
|
|
|
|
partha11,
Dylakor(DYL280) is an interpretive language, not a compiled language. This means that for every line of instruction, the base Dylakor program must interpret the source and execute ?canned? routines to execute the instruction. Most of the CPU is taken up in the interpretation of the instructions, not the execution of the instruction. COBOL, on the other hand, is a compiled language that translates the COBOL instructions into machine language once at compile time and only creates machine language for the specific instruction. Execution is performed on the machine language. Now this is not to say that COBOL doesn?t use many subroutines to accomplish many of the functions it performs.
Dave |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lemojames
New User
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 3
Location: Pune
|
|
|
|
To add on the query. We do have REXX language which is also run without compiling. Ofcourse we can have a compiled code for huge file handling operations. Do we have similar kind of method in DYL280 also.
Eventhough rexx can be run without compiling, its much faster compared to COBOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| Eventhough rexx can be run without compiling, its much faster compared to COBOL. |
What statistics do you have that demonstrate this?
Compiled/assembled/linked code typically uses less resources than interpreted code. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TG Murphy
Active User
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 148
Location: Ottawa Canada
|
|
|
|
| Agree with Dick. Without doubt, Rexx is much slower than COBOL. Yet... I love it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earl
Active User
Joined: 17 Jun 2007
Posts: 148
Location: oklahoma
|
|
|
|
| to each his own, I'd ratther code in assembler, its faster than all of them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Yup, i like working with assembler (rather a lot  ). A concern with assembler is that there are fewer and fewer who could maintain the code once written. It is the language i've worked with the longest - well a few assemblers 
Not so many clients are willing to fund creating things that "run the fastest". . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Devzee
Active Member
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 684
Location: Hollywood
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Do we have similar kind of method in DYL280 also. |
NO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zakir Ali
New User
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Posts: 2
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Can any one tell me how to compare two files using DYL language. Please post some templates, So that I can understand it better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Earl Haigh
Active User
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 475
|
|
|
|
if you know how to perform a file read in DYL280, it should be easy enough for you to write your own logic to compare records after
reads.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Devzee
Active Member
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 684
Location: Hollywood
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| how to compare two files using DYL language |
There is no standard template, If you know the compare logic then you can write your own compariosn logic for your requirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
If you do not know the compare logic, there is a "Sticky" near the top of the COBOL forum that you might adapt for your requirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HappySrinu
Active User
Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 194
Location: India
|
|
|
|
| dick scherrer wrote: |
Hello,
If you do not know the compare logic, there is a "Sticky" near the top of the COBOL forum that you might adapt for your requirement. |
this is not answer to your question.
DYL280 is reporting language whih is similar to cobol but as every one said it is interpret lang so use more resources.
It have lot of in built functions which we can straight away use for report formating.
Even thouht D's comment was correct that the intrepret languages process time is slow but it is easy to update/modify and especialy while running in production we don't need to follow lot of steps like compilation etc..
My team use to work on DYL280 and hoenstly i never worked on it other than looking in doco..
so don't mind guys.correct me if i am wrong |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19243
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello,
| Quote: |
| correct me if i am wrong |
Not necessarily a matter of right or wrong. It is a good practice when posting an opinion (rather than some technical fact) to post that is an oinion.
| Quote: |
this is not answer to your question.
DYL280 is reporting language whih is similar to cobol but as every one said it is interpret lang so use more resources. |
I don't know what the second sentence has to do with the first. . . Actually, it may well be an answer to the question. Being interpreted versus compiled has little to do with coding logic. If TS can read COBOL and implement the same logic (different syntax) using DYL280, it should work as desired.
| Quote: |
| It have lot of in built functions which we can straight away use for report formating. |
How does this relate to comparing 2 files? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
