Re: Development Tools

I remember reading something a few years ago that said that the RDS image in memory was not shared by the users running it, so a big RDS file was a dog, though the runner was shared. Well, thats the theory anyway, tell all this to AIX Aways, we find that the RDS compiled stuff works quite fine for us, allows the programmers to make all sorts of lurvely stuff ups, like not initing variables, using C reserved words as function names etc. The words, big ugly string handling? do it in compiled. RDS crawls on that. Personally I like RDS compiled stuff, as I see it, its cheaper to buy more resources than try and get legacy stuff to work brett Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > In the year of Our Lord Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:24:58 -0600, "James Ferrill" > <jferrill@pccarx.com> spake, saying: > > >There's been a big discussion at work recently about the > >differences/advantages of using 4GL in RDS mode or compiled mode. The > >information from Informix was either off of their web site or was a document > >8+ years old. My experience with Online 5.X was that compiled code was > >faster and smaller than RDS code, and that an ESQL/C batch program could be > >4-6 times faster than the equivalent 4GL program depending on how it was > >written. > > > >Does anyone have any more timely information about this topic? We're > >currently running IDS 7.31UC5 with the 4GL-RDS runtime. Would compiling the > >programs gain anything? > > It has been an age since I did any benchmarks, but the synopsis was: > > 1. As far as interactive use goes, there's not really much to choose. > 2. A well-written batch could be up to 25% faster compiled than RDS. > 3. I cannot imagine how a compiled program could be smaller than an RDS program. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brett's 13th law of UNIX administration... The 13th sucks, we'll skip this one ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Geer - UNIX Admin/Analyst/Programmer - Intratex Holdings. Tel. +27 31 717 4000 Direct. +27 31 717 4146 Fax. +27 31 717 4001 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The little voices are talking to me again, telling me of a long forgotten rhyme... the Rhyme of the Ancient Sysadmin # ps -ef | kill -9 `awk '/albatross/{print $2}'` -----------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:28:19 +0200, Brett Geer <brett@brabys.co.za> wrote: > >I remember reading something a few years ago that said that the >RDS image in memory was not shared by the users running it, so >a big RDS file was a dog, though the runner was shared. > >Well, thats the theory anyway, tell all this to AIX > >Aways, we find that the RDS compiled stuff works quite fine for us, >allows the programmers to make all sorts of lurvely stuff ups, >like not initing variables, using C reserved words as function names >etc. > >The words, big ugly string handling? do it in compiled. RDS crawls >on that. > >Personally I like RDS compiled stuff, as I see it, its cheaper to >buy more resources than try and get legacy stuff to work > >brett > > > >Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >> In the year of Our Lord Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:24:58 -0600, "James Ferrill" >> <jferrill@pccarx.com> spake, saying: >> >> >There's been a big discussion at work recently about the >> >differences/advantages of using 4GL in RDS mode or compiled mode. The >> >information from Informix was either off of their web site or was a document >> >8+ years old. My experience with Online 5.X was that compiled code was >> >faster and smaller than RDS code, and that an ESQL/C batch program could be >> >4-6 times faster than the equivalent 4GL program depending on how it was >> >written. >> > >> >Does anyone have any more timely information about this topic? We're >> >currently running IDS 7.31UC5 with the 4GL-RDS runtime. Would compiling the >> >programs gain anything? >> >> It has been an age since I did any benchmarks, but the synopsis was: >> >> 1. As far as interactive use goes, there's not really much to choose. >> 2. A well-written batch could be up to 25% faster compiled than RDS. >> 3. I cannot imagine how a compiled program could be smaller than an RDS program. > Hi! A question: what is RDS? Wasn't it the first name of the firm with a product called informix? Thanks for info! Cheers Peter

In the year of Our Lord Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:35:53 GMT, proORGA-Leimen@web.de (Peter Michel) spake, saying: >A question: what is RDS? In this context, it stands for Rapid Development System. The original Informix was called Relational Database Systems. >Wasn't it the first name of the firm with a product called informix?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:18:13 GMT, obnoxio@hotmail.com (Obnoxio The Clown) wrote: >In the year of Our Lord Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:35:53 GMT, proORGA-Leimen@web.de >(Peter Michel) spake, saying: > >>A question: what is RDS? > >In this context, it stands for Rapid Development System. The original Informix >was called Relational Database Systems. > >>Wasn't it the first name of the firm with a product called informix? > OH B>O, i see that's indeed rapid ;-o)