I've used all the compilers, and prefer Petspeed.   
      
   On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:08:48 +1200,   
   nospam.Janne.Johansson@f6.n221.z2.binkp.net (Janne Johansson) wrote:   
      
   >On 2018-04-18 09:37, Shaun Bebbington : Janne Johansson wrote:   
   >> On Wednesday, 18 April 2018 16:41:28 UTC+1, Janne Johansson  wrote:   
   >>> On 2018-04-18 05:38, Shaun Bebbington : All wrote:   
   >>> > Thanks for the hints all. I'll do some bench mark testing or   
   >>> whatever :-)   
   >>>   
   >>> Please do. If benchmarking with a FOR loop over hundreds or thousands of   
   >>> repetitions is too hard to figure it out, then the answer isn't really   
   >>> important.   
   >>   
   >> Hey! Good hint.   
   >   
   >I noticed (after sending of course) that it may have been perceivable as   
   >a harsh statement, hinting at lazyness or something, I meant more along   
   >the lines of "if you try 100 loops and can't make out the difference,   
   >then try 1000 loops then try 10k loops and so on, the difference might   
   >be so small that its not worth coding your BASIC programs with %   
   >sprinkled here and there for optimization reasons, but just go for   
   >normal ordinary readability and simplicity since performance is then   
   >bound by something else like algorithmic complexity and not the one-time   
   >conversions from ints to floats and back".   
   >   
   >If you really need a basic program to run faster, there are a lot of   
   >compilers that pre-calculate and pre-parse and then make some kind of   
   >machine language equivalent program out of it which you can run and   
   >which will be lots faster. If that isn't fast enough still, code   
   >important parts in ASM directly or at least code it up in CC65 using   
   >C for some middle ground between compiled BASIC and doing it all in   
   >ASM yourself.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: SpaceSST BBS Usenet  Fidonet Gateway (255:255/999)