FYI

[Flexibal]

for your information -- for loops are faster than conditional do-loops, and faster than do-loops with a counter and an IF statement within. just consider that when optimizing.





[Flexibal>

[Agamemnus]

We already discussed this.

You're wrong.

.978515625
1.2109375

Code:

CLS
start% = 0
end1% = 1
CONST step1% = 1
GOSUB try1
GOSUB try2
SLEEP
SYSTEM

try1:
t1# = TIMER
FOR j& = 1 TO 4000000
i% = start%
1 IF i% > end1% THEN GOTO 2
i% = i% + step1%
GOTO 1
2
NEXT j&
t2# = TIMER
PRINT t2# - t1#
RETURN

try2:
t1# = TIMER
FOR j& = 1 TO 4000000
FOR i% = start1% TO end1% STEP step1%
NEXT i%
NEXT j&
t2# = TIMER
PRINT t2# - t1#
RETURN

[Flexibal]

with my code, using for, i get 1.3sec; with do loop with an counter and an if i get 1.9 sec.

shush.



[Flexibal>

[Agamemnus]

show me your code.

[Zack]

In assembly it takes less code to do a DO-type loop than a FOR-type loop. So what you say is illogical, Flex.

[Agamemnus]

DO loops (__with counters!!!__) do not take less time than FOR loops...

"do loops", that is do loops without "DO" but with GOTO and an IF, such as those in my code, are faster.

[Zack]

Yes, GOTO loops are ways faster, as this is the assembly code for it:
label:
...code...
jmp label
And for FOR loops you need to use a bunch of registers, etc.

[Agamemnus]

Yes, GOTO loops are faster than FOR loops, but loops with an IF, an increment operator, and a few GOTOs that act exactly 100% like a FOR loop are more efficient, for unknown reasons.