Yes, one of the changes between PL/I (F) and the "Optimizing" Compiler was using fewer GETMAINs for stack management. However, I found the performance of F to be adequate as long as I didn't do much with unaligned bit strings.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Michael Stein [m...@zlvfc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 2:42 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PL/I question (slow?) On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:20:10AM +0000, Rupert Reynolds wrote: > Vaguely related, can anyone comment on the assertions that PL/I was > considered "too slow" back in the old days, and that it was "too verbose > for writing system code"? Excuse me? MVS system macros are stuffed with its > close relative, PL/S! I used PL/1 back in the MVT days, F level. My memory says that it did a getmain/freemain for each PL1 procedure call. So reading a file of students (30k+) you couldn't afford a procedure call in the path. It was ok to use them during init and term (which only happened once). This was a 360/91KK and 2314 disks... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
