>No offense, Terry, but I wouldn't approach it this way. I'd strive for program correctness and quality before speed. The reason is simple, before I write the code, I have no idea where the bottle necks are.
>
>Wouldn't you agree that a correctly designed program executes faster than a less correctly designed one? Is not fast execution, as long as accuracy and usability are not compromised, an indication of a well designed program.

In many cases, yes. In all? No. The first thing you need to define is "fast execution". Instead of "accuracy and usability" I'd substitute, "maintainability" and "reusability".

Correctly designed programs have a tendency to not be as "fast" as incorrect ones. The reason is simple. Correctly designed programs, one's that have "decomposed" or "partitioned" the problem correctly, tend to pay a price in overhead (such as calling another routine, parameters, returns values) when compared to those that write in-line code.
>
>But would the user notice?
>I try to notice!

< g >You're not the user.

>I think that you'll find that you can work a few less hours by concentrating on correct, high quality code rather than speed.

>I'd probably spend my free time looking for loose nuts and bolts - which is what I spend most of my time doing anyway. If it was easy - anybody could do it!

The thing is "anybody" can do it, but "anybody" can't be good at it.