Improper fixup

You appear to be so blinded by your own 'I do efficient' self-belief
whether I do efficient (which I do) or not is totally irrelevant. The point is that '51 code should be efficient. Of course if the choice of the '51 for a given app is wrong in the first place, then any point about '51 code is moot.

Since you insist, I'll give you one final comment on the subject ...

You keep giving me comments how about an answer!!!

from last post: You stated that the above problem was a fault of my design and to that I replied "please advuse how to predict which deviations from the standat=rd an unknown (maybe not even made yet) product x will have"

That you have never answered Instead you keep inmsulting me by stating that such a problem is a fault of my design ("that would be serious indication of poor quality").

Erik

You appear to be so blinded by your own 'I do efficient' self-belief
whether I do efficient (which I do) or not is totally irrelevant. The point is that '51 code should be efficient. Of course if the choice of the '51 for a given app is wrong in the first place, then any point about '51 code is moot.

Since you insist, I'll give you one final comment on the subject ...

You keep giving me comments how about an answer!!!

from last post: You stated that the above problem was a fault of my design and to that I replied "please advuse how to predict which deviations from the standat=rd an unknown (maybe not even made yet) product x will have"

That you have never answered Instead you keep inmsulting me by stating that such a problem is a fault of my design ("that would be serious indication of poor quality").

Erik

The point is that '51 code should be efficient.

Why?

If I have a 9600 baud serial port, it doesn't matter if the code is capable of handling 20k characters/second.

If I need to read a voltage every second, it doesn't matter if the ISR is able to process 8k samples/second or not.

If the application fits in available memory, it doesn't matter if there is 1kB or 10kB code space free.

Only if the application hits (or may hit) a limit is it meaningful to make a decision if it is better to try to squeeze/speed up the code, or switch to faster/larger iron.

The main thing is to write correct code that is also easy to maintain. The need for optimization is more a project-to-project decision, depending on the requirements.

In some cases, the customer may want a new "applet" or feature within a couple of days in a unit with remote update capability. They may want to show off a "cool feature" on a fair.

In some cases, the code may be expected to run unchanged for many years in multi-k products which would require transport to factory if they contain a major error.

In some cases it is ok to switch to a $100 more expensive processor since the end product may cost $10k will all external hardware, making the processor price insignificant.

The point is that '51 code should be efficient.

Why?

If I have a 9600 baud serial port, it doesn't matter if the code is capable of handling 20k characters/second.

If I need to read a voltage every second, it doesn't matter if the ISR is able to process 8k samples/second or not.

If the application fits in available memory, it doesn't matter if there is 1kB or 10kB code space free.

all the above is (partially) correct; however applying such thinking will, very likely, hit you in a large muscle when the next feature is to be added for MKII of your product.

Also, if you habitually code efficient, you will not have to 'fight' when a project comes up that absolutely require efficient coding.

In some cases it is ok to switch to a $100 more expensive processor since the end product may cost $10k will all external hardware, making the processor price insignificant.
Absolutely, I have always stated "use the right processor for the job, do not try to make the '51 an 'universal' solution".

Erik