<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">More good stuff (and thanks for being a kindred soul to hash these things out as a resource for the list)!<BR>
<BR>
One thing that may bear some clarification, depending on how you did you benchmarks:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">Pascal: x := x+1 --> 1<BR>
C++: x = x+1 --> 1<BR>
MetaCard: add 1 to x --> 80<BR>
MetaCard: put x + 1 into x --> 130<BR>
HyperCard: add 1 to x --> 2800<BR>
HyperCard: put x + 1 into x --> 3600<BR>
Empty extension: --> 3500<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
Part of what may be going on here, depending on your code, is not just the relative speed of C++ / MetaCard.<BR>
<BR>
Any good C++ compiler does a lot of optimization. So if you simply wrote a repeat loop which incremented a variable inside, say 10,000 times, the compiler may simply compile it as the equivalent of "add 10000 to x" rather than 10,000 separate instructions. If you actually force the compiler to access the value of the variable in each iteration, it may affect the comparisons by disallowing that optimization.<BR>
<BR>
With that said, I'm nitpicking: you did say rough and the relative order is certainly right. Just call me nitpicker...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
Brian Yennie<BR>
Chief Technology Officer<BR>
QLD Learning, LLC<BR>
www.QLDLearning.com<BR>
<BR>
PH: (904)-997-0212<BR>
EMAIL: Yennie@aol.com<BR>
-------------------------------<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"></FONT></HTML>