>>>>>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}
>>
>>I'd also be kind of curious as to why my VFP testing was getting 7+ second numbers where Nick got less than 3 ? ( see my specs )
>>
>>Nick, what are you running?
>
>
>Charles,
>
>Running on an 18 month old workstation but a reasonably fast one:
>Win2003 Server - reasonably clean install
>CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 - 2.8Ghz
>RAM: 2 x 4Gb DDR3 1600Mhz
>
>Nick

I wonder if there is a performance penalty in VFP running on a 64 bit OS, since my box took about 3 times what yours did in VFP.

In any case, I find the C# results interesting. Not sure if they can be extrapolated to anything meaningful as but a difference in the random function doesn't seem to account for it as when there was only addition going on inside the loop C# outperformed VFP even more dramatically. I was frankly surprised ( but I guess glad, since I actually do all my development in .net now <s> )

I'd be interested to see other comparisons. I know string handling was touted in VFP as being faster than anything anyone had seen but I'm going to put together some tests comparing that in VFP and C# as well.