First, why are you so intense? The universe isn't against you. Chill out man
Second, you are mixing things, again. Nobody is talking about disk access speed, we are talking about basic execution times.
And you contradict yourself, you are saying GPL has nothing to do with a slow basic, and you are saying the XB is faster because it has some functions implemented in assembler.
Regarding assembly basic, isn't cortex basic exactly that. I'll make the same test with it later
No argument Assembly is faster, but factually Assembly needs SOMEPLACE TO RESIDE!
There is NO CONSOLE BUILT IN FACILITY TO DO THIS unlike GPL that was built in.
Now if this is a argument of what you think the TI should be designed like, but that is not the real world of what we have now.
And is this just shooting for what you would like this is not the reason Basic is slower then XB, I have laid out exactly why and know it better than anyone.
The problem is VDP and GPL combined with Assembly increases the speed, but Texas Instruments did not want a major speed difference between TI Basic and XB,
thus why they did not move ALL OF XB including STRINGS to RAM. This would force a chance in all XB programs to not work the same as TI Basic. Texas Instruments
opted for compatibility over speed. This is why the odd way they added Assembly to XB.
I mean how often have you looked at the TI Basic and XB source code?
(I have been doing it for 30 years I am not a idiot!)
Edited by RXB, Today, 11:12 AM.