At 03:57 PM 96-04-13 EDT, you wrote:

[munch...]

>But, when the 16C84 with compiled code was put on there, the results were
>significantly better - a 15x improvement in speed.
>
>But, I would have expected an *astoundlying* improvement in the loop.  Scott
>says "compiled code is rarely as efficient as code written by a crafty
>assembly-language programmer".  But, I would have expected significantly
>better performance from the Compiler.

Don't forget that the Basic Stamp must first fetch the next instruction from
the EEPROM before it can actually interpret what the commmand does.  This
contributes to a massive slow down in execution speed.

MD
--
Martin Darwin   Second Year Computer Engineering
s721099@aix2.uottawa.ca      University of Ottawa
"When in doubt -- Mumble"       Ottawa, Ontario