Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!umich!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!ka3ovk!ki4pv!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
From: fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Really stupid Q?
Keywords: C vs COBOL under UNIX
Message-ID: <502@icdi10.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jan 90 22:06:02 GMT
References: <10821@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <1366@atha.AthabascaU.CA> <1990Jan5.174006.2262@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Reply-To: fr@icdi10.UUCP (Fred Rump from home)
Organization: but normally @ Compudata Inc. Phila PA
Lines: 24

In article <1990Jan5.174006.2262@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:
>toma@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Tom Armistead) writes:
>>I have a "requirement" to provide hard facts regarding COBOL performance
>>under UNIX. ...
>
>It would be interesting to see some Cobol performance figures for a 386.

While I don't have any real numbers either, the one big COBOL package out 
there in Xenix/Unix land is Real World and MCBA. Both are decendants of the 
Mini world of old and run one hell of a lot of systems.

We write our own tight C code for a vertical, but also recommend and install 
Real World into lots of systems. Speed does not seem to be a real issue in 
today's 25Mhz and up 386 boxes. But SIZE ... wow, do these COBOL programs chew 
up disk space. Lots and lots of files. It seems that programs that don't 
really do a lot still have all the overhead of COBOL again and again and 
again. 
fred 

-- 
This is my house.   My castle will get started right after I finish with news. 
26 Warren St.             uucp:          ...{bpa dsinc uunet}!cdin-1!icdi10!fr
Beverly, NJ 08010       domain:  fred@cdin-1.uu.net or icdi10!fr@cdin-1.uu.net
609-386-6846          "Freude... Alle Menschen werden Brueder..."  -  Schiller