Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!ima!esegue!johnl
From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Really stupid Q?
Keywords: C vs COBOL under UNIX
Message-ID: <1990Jan5.174006.2262@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 5 Jan 90 17:40:06 GMT
References: <10821@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <1366@atha.AthabascaU.CA>
Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Lines: 15

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.
The 386 should be a pretty good Cobol machine -- it has instructions to
support packed and unpacked decimal arithmetic as well as all sorts of
string munging, which I'd think are the main sorts of computations that
Cobol programs do.  PC Cobol implementations have tended to be compile-and-
interpret since much of what a Cobol program does would be subroutine calls
anyway, and I don't know how that affects performance in practice.
-- 
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
"Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."