> I was really disappointed/shocked in the performance numbers Scott Edwards
> quoted in the article; they were something like 1,000x slower than what I
> would consider a "decent" compiler (I seem to remember that a hand-written
> assembler could be as much as 1,400x better) for the speed the PIC was
> running at.  Now, it is 10-50x better than the STAMP, but it's really pretty
> slow.

Which Pic BASIC was he talking about?  PBASIC from Parallax is an
interpreter.  The "compile" option merely copies the interpreter and the
P-Code into a PIC.

There are also one or two true Pic BASIC compilers out there that produce
native PIC code.

The latter should be much faster than the former.