Hi Tamar,

please pardon me for jumping in.

I want to arrest you for using wrong words. You have arrested other for using words such as recurse, so you have put yourself in a glass house, as we say in norwegian.

Nothing can be 10 times slower, that's impossible, but it can take 10 times the time to execute. What you mean to say is that it is one tenth of the speed. I have many years of advanced math from high school, and my teacher would have turned over in his grave if he heard '10 times slower'. When you multiply any positive value by a value higher than one, you always get a higher value. So technically '10 times' and 'slower' is a contradiction, or at lease they don't belong together. Just like '10 times less' or '10 times smaller' also are samples of wrong use of words.

I hope I have made myself clear, and that you understand my explanation?

NB! No pun intended. :-)

>>RE: Major Performance Penalty
>>
>>Is this type of thing still an issue? I mean, CPUs are so fast now ... not that performance isn't an issue (I have one calculation that runs for 20 minutes), but rather that it seems that the overall design seems to be of much more major of a concern that the internals of how VFP does things.
>
>Just looked at my notes on this (which happen to be in the Hacker's Guide, where everyone can read them <g>). At my last testing, having:
>
>

>*MyProg.PRG
>PROCEDURE MyProg
>* Code starts here
>

>
>was 10 times slower than:
>
>

>*MyProg.PRG
>* Code starts here
>

>
>in VFP 6 and earlier, but the penalty was gone in VFP 6 SP3 and VFP 7. Haven't tested since then.
>
>You also raise a good question about the importance of such things in an era of fast CPUs. It depends, of course, on how many times you make such calls.
>
>Tamar