Yes, that is the way VFP works. The problem is that it has to find variables (or properties) in a list of names.

A true compiler would change the names to memory locations at compile time. VFP doesn't. This means that for certain things, VFP is quite slow.

>Hi,
>
>Finally I have found the time in order to write a procedure that explain the low efficiency of the ruotine that writes a value on one scalar property.
>
>Premised:
>when VFP must read or write on one object property, VFP searches the property in the list (an inner Array with max 64000 items) of the names of the properties of the object.
>The used method is one linear scansion.
>The names of the scalar property and Array property are in the same list.
>
>Strangely the time necessary for the search scansion of a scalar property to write, turns out double of the normally necessary time.
>
>In order to measure this effect, it is necessary to create a high number of properties:
>

>clear
>RELEASE all
>_SCREEN.FontName="Courier new"
>SET DEVICE TO SCREEN
>nCycle = 10000
>x=CREATEOBJECT('empty')
>* internal array is filled with interleaved array,scalar properties
>FOR k=0 TO 9999
>	=ADDPROPERTY(m.x,"array"+PADL(LTRIM(STR(m.k,5)),5,"0")+"[1]")
>	=ADDPROPERTY(m.x,"scalar"+PADL(LTRIM(STR(m.k,5)),5,"0"))
>NEXT
>
>@ $  ,0 say "Item   | Scalar Read   | Scalar Write |  Array Read  | Array Write   "
>@ $+1,0 say "-------|---------------|--------------|--------------|---------------"
>@ $+1,0 say "First   "
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> =x.scalar00000
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> x.scalar00000 = .T.
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3) STYLE "B"
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> =x.array00000
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> x.array00000 = .T.
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>
>@ $+1,0 say "Middle  "
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> =x.scalar04999
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> x.scalar04999 = .T.
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3) STYLE "B"
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> =x.array04999
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> x.array04999 = .T.
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>
>@ $+1,0 say "Last    "
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> =x.scalar09999
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> x.scalar09999 = .T.
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3) STYLE "B"
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> =x.array09999
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>T1=SECONDS()
>FOR jui=1 TO m.nCycle
> x.array09999 = .T.
>NEXT
>@ $,$ say STR(SECONDS()-T1,15,3)
>
>* Result on my machine
>*Item   | Scalar Read   | Scalar Write |  Array Read  | Array Write
>*-------|---------------|--------------|--------------|---------------
>*First             0,010          0,010          0,010          0,010
>*Middle            0,370          0,701          0,361          0,360
>*Last              0,741          1,452          0,761          0,761
>

>
>Even if with a number of normal properties, this slowing down is not measurable, it exists.
>
>I hope that the VFPT controls the code and can resolve this strange behavior (a lot penalizing).
>
>Thanks
>
>Fabio