Integers was:RE: [AccessD] Global Variable

I was always under the impression that a 16bit integer was processed in a 
single clock cycle just like the 32bit long integer. Additionally a 16bit 
integer always took up less memory. Have I been led astray from all the 
various tech magazines and discussion lists around the net?



On 5/18/05, DWUTKA at marlow.com <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote:
> 
> Now does that make sense? Where is the value in using a slower variable
> (Integer) to represent, let's say a month. Sure, the value is going to be 
> 1
> through 12, unless the calendar itself changes. If you use a Long Integer,
> for the same value, can it not store 1 through 12 also? Running faster?
> It's not a different language, so you can't compare going to assembler, 
> from
> VB, besides, unless I'm mistaken, math in VB is going to be just as fast 
> as
> something in assembler....
> 
> Drew
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hale, Jim [mailto:Jim.Hale at fleetpride.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 12:08 PM
> To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving'
> Subject: RE: [AccessD] Global Variable
> 
> Okay Drew, you've completely confused me (which often is not all that hard
> to do). I thought it was always a "good" practice to type variables
> according to use. I use integers for things like months, loop counters 
> (the
> infamous dim x),etc. and longs only when I know the number has a chance to
> exceed the integer limit. I hope you are not arguing integers are "bad"
> because they are less efficient, take up more cycles, etc. Using that
> standard we should all be programming using assembler.
> 
> Jim Hale
> 
> 
-- 
-Francisco
http://pcthis.blogspot.com |PC news with out the jargon!
http://sqlthis.blogspot.com | Tsql and More...