I've used all the compilers, and prefer Petspeed.

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:08:48 +1200,
nospam.Janne.Johansson@f6.n221.z2.binkp.net (Janne Johansson) wrote:

>On 2018-04-18 09:37, Shaun Bebbington : Janne Johansson wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 18 April 2018 16:41:28 UTC+1, Janne Johansson  wrote:
>>> On 2018-04-18 05:38, Shaun Bebbington : All wrote:
>>> > Thanks for the hints all. I'll do some bench mark testing or
>>> whatever :-)
>>>
>>> Please do. If benchmarking with a FOR loop over hundreds or thousands of
>>> repetitions is too hard to figure it out, then the answer isn't really
>>> important.
>>
>> Hey! Good hint.
>
>I noticed (after sending of course) that it may have been perceivable as
>a harsh statement, hinting at lazyness or something, I meant more along
>the lines of "if you try 100 loops and can't make out the difference,
>then try 1000 loops then try 10k loops and so on, the difference might
>be so small that its not worth coding your BASIC programs with %
>sprinkled here and there for optimization reasons, but just go for
>normal ordinary readability and simplicity since performance is then
>bound by something else like algorithmic complexity and not the one-time
>conversions from ints to floats and back".
>
>If you really need a basic program to run faster, there are a lot of
>compilers that pre-calculate and pre-parse and then make some kind of
>machine language equivalent program out of it which you can run and
>which will be lots faster. If that isn't fast enough still, code
>important parts in ASM directly or at least code it up in CC65 using
>C for some middle ground between compiled BASIC and doing it all in
>ASM yourself.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05