Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!rohvm1!madif From: MADIF@ROHVM1.BITNET (Jim Foster) Newsgroups: comp.lang.rexx Subject: Re: Rexx compiler(s) Message-ID: <90235.100535MADIF@ROHVM1.BITNET> Date: 23 Aug 90 14:05:35 GMT References: <90230.092947BOYDJ@QUCDN.BITNET> <90231.095318BOYDJ@QUCDN.BITNET> <26d00a0a-3d.4comp.lang.rexx-1@tronsbox.xei.com> <90234.100626RMCCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> Organization: Rohm and Haas Company Lines: 38 In article <90234.100626RMCCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>, Robert Chambers says: > >There are some applications where compiling a REXX exec will not affect >performance much at all, one of these is an exec that does mostly system >calls. IE > >Global's, Filedef's ,SET's and things of this nature. > We've found this to be true. >Interpret of course will not work, but for the most part any programmer >worth his/her salt can come up with ingenous ways around using this function. > I think this is an overbroad generalization. Interpret is part of the REXX language (and a useful part at that). If a compiler can't compile a valid REXX program with an interpret statement, then it's not a REXX compiler. That's why there is now a SHARE requirement for IBM to implement the interpret statement. There are certain situations where interpret is the only reasonable way to accomplish something. We've discussed this with the Vienna Software Development Laboratory and Endicott. They seem to agree with us. They also agree that it's quite difficult to actually implement the interpret statement. >If you have an application that is not suitable for compilation thats just >too bad, I mean the last X in REXX does stand for eXecutor after all! > >I think people yearning for speed will have to break down and learn >assembler, You won't get any faster than that. Compiled REXX won't come >close - Unless the REXX compiler is really really intelligent (which I >doubt) Oh? What if you've got a 50,000 line REXX application that "yearns for speed"? How long would it take to re-write it in assembler verses running it through the compiler? Assembler programmers don't come cheap and they don't produce applications as fast as REXX programmers. There's a lot of existing code out there that could benefit from compilation with an expense to the company of a couple of man-days verses several (or many) man-months for an assembler rewrite.