<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Which Apple Interpreted Basic is the Fastest?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.willegal.net/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.willegal.net/blog/?p=1617</link>
	<description>computers, trains, wargames, fish, railroads and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 11:08:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.willegal.net/blog/?p=1617&#038;cpage=1#comment-1946</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2011 11:01:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willegal.net/blog/?p=1617#comment-1946</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[however - the thing that surprised me is that Apple 1 Integer BASIC is a bit faster than Apple II Integer BASIC - the Apple II version is very similar to the Apple 1 version.   Applesoft is slower because Integer BASIC parses the input into binary when you enter the program, not when you run it.  Applesoft parses the program only when you run it, which makes running the program take longer.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>however &#8211; the thing that surprised me is that Apple 1 Integer BASIC is a bit faster than Apple II Integer BASIC &#8211; the Apple II version is very similar to the Apple 1 version.   Applesoft is slower because Integer BASIC parses the input into binary when you enter the program, not when you run it.  Applesoft parses the program only when you run it, which makes running the program take longer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Wholly</title>
		<link>http://www.willegal.net/blog/?p=1617&#038;cpage=1#comment-1945</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Wholly]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2011 18:50:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.willegal.net/blog/?p=1617#comment-1945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Given that Integer BASIC is a bit simpler by not having to provide support for floating point values, I&#039;m not surprised it&#039;s faster.  This is why the old Integer BASIC card was released for the ][+.  No one was willing to give up that kind of speed - until they wanted to have &quot;1/2&quot; make sense to the machine.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given that Integer BASIC is a bit simpler by not having to provide support for floating point values, I&#8217;m not surprised it&#8217;s faster.  This is why the old Integer BASIC card was released for the ][+.  No one was willing to give up that kind of speed &#8211; until they wanted to have &#8220;1/2&#8243; make sense to the machine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
