Re: compiled 4gl vs. r4gl

>Subject: compiled 4gl vs. r4gl >To: informix-list@rmy.emory.edu >Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 9:48:19 PST >From: Karla Leibowitz <uunet!group1.COM!karla> >X-Informix-List-Id: <list.1562> > >Could anyone tell me what improvement I would see if I changed from >r4gl to compiled 4gl? We have an SCO Unix system, if that makes a difference. > >I was wondering if we could expect any improvements in screen repaints, >memory usage or processing speed. Also, how significant would these >improvements be? > >Thanks in advance. Its a complex equation, and it depends on who you're asking. If you ask your developers, they'll probably shoot you if you suggest dropping r4gl -- it is infinitely (well, ok, lots) faster than c4gl to develop with, and you have the debugger to help. Retain r4gl for development, even if you use c4gl for production code! For production work, with lots of users using the same few programs, then you usually benefit from the reduced memory demand with c4gl. However, if you have lots of different, tiddly little I4GL programs, then you may actually benefit from using r4gl instead of c4gl. The speed benefit depends on how your terminals are connected to your system, and on the overall workload, and all sorts of things. In general, reducing the workload will produce some speed up in the screen repaints, but not necessarily very dramatic ones, because it may be the I/O bandwidth that is slowing things up rather than the CPU power, especially on a SCO Unix box. Yours prevaricatingly, Jonathan Leffler (johnl@obelix.informix.com) #include <disclaimer.h>