On 26 Aug 2009 10:52:59 -0700, eamacn...@yahoo.ca (Ted MacNEIL) wrote: >>I have a feeling that many shops went to PL/I because it was easier than >>persuading standards people to add SSRANGE. 8^) > >As a performance & capacity analyst since 1981, I don't believe the heartache >over options such as SSRANGE is worth the (supposedly) saved CPU. >Most (so-called) savings aren't worth the cost of a cheap beer. >But, so many people still worry about it.
I suspect fewer and fewer people worry about as costs change and it becomes obvious that such nits are no longer (if they ever were) cost effective. I doubt if there is anybody here who likes that standard, but that doesn't mean changing it is at all easy. Even when we have much different standards (by necessity) in the OO/Web side of things. >Re-engineering a process will save a lot more than tuning a transaction. Sure - but re-engineering has a bigger risk than changing standards. And risk-avoidance seems to be the reason for this kind of conservativism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
