>>At 800 mhz, I stopped worrying about most of this stuff. It's "perception" that is important.
>>
>>And, when it came to writing "converters", that little "m." also made it a lot easier for me to parse my code. You're viewing it in one (limited) context; it serves other purposes that may have nothing to do with the actual running of the program.
>
>If you want to use m., go right ahead. I'm just pointing out that IMO it isn't necessary and have discussed why.
>
>>
>>It gets even sillier when you consider that in most programs, there are many "performance blunders" that make the use of "m." insignificant, even in YOUR programs; eg. one "misplaced" LOCAL will create a lot more overhead than a couple of m&m's.
>
>I've never said that my code doesn't have problems. However, after coding with dBase, Clipper, FoxBase, and FoxPro for 20 years, and studied what makes fast code as well as easily read and maintainable code, and put those things into practice, I think my code is much better than most peoples.
>
>>
>>I expect that "comments" in a program also "slow down" the compiling process because there is more "data" to read initially. Does that mean we should remove them ?
>
>I can't say if they will or won't. They will make your EXE bigger. However comments play a more important role than m.

Craig;

Are you saying comments become part of the exe? If so, I thought they were excluded?

Tom