>>Hi All,
>>
>>Not really a Fox question specifically but thought someone here might have an idea on this.
>>
>>I am wondering just how code execution speed of VFP compares to other languages such as Python and Ruby? Take for example the following 10million times loop:
>>

>>nStart = SECONDS()
>>a = 0
>>b = RAND()
>>FOR x = 1 TO 10000000
>>	a = a + b
>>NEXT
>>nStop = SECONDS()
>>? nStop-nStart, X, a
>>

>>
>>This runs on my machine in VFP in 2.4secs. Any idea how fast it would run in either of the alternative languages?
>>
>>Thanks,
>
>I'm not a process timer guru, but as a brain exercise decided to try your code in VFP 9 and what I think is a similar process in C# on my box -
>
>i7 cpu 1.73 ghz
>6 gb ram
>Win 7 64 bit
>
>Your code in my vfp 9 sp 2
>
>6.9 to 7.9 seconds on ten tests
>using 100,000,000 in the loop - 79.889 seconds
>
>This is my C# test :
>
>

>
>        static void Main(string[] args)
>        {
>            Random random = new Random();
>            int a = 0;
>            int b = random.Next();
>            Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
>            stopwatch.Start();
>            for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
>            {
>                a += b;
>            }
>
>            stopwatch.Stop();
>
>            TimeSpan elapsedTime = stopwatch.Elapsed;
>            Console.WriteLine(elapsedTime.ToString());
>            Console.Read();
>        }
>

>
>This does the 10,000,000 loop in .06 seconds.
>
>It appears your VFP code only generates one random number, so I tried to emulate that. If i move the generation of the random number inside the loop
>
>a += random.New();
>
>the whole process takes between .44 and .48 seconds.
>
>Since I know as a matter of catechism that nothing is faster than the Fox, I am sure my methodology must be flawed, but I find it interesting, nonethless and would welcome explanation.

IAC I think you're lucky that a didn't overflow {g}