Hi,
I know that we rather use a Sub than a Function when we do not return a value from a procedure.
However, here is a case whereby all the code in a Module (even when not returning a value) has been written with Functions instead of Subs.
Before changing everything (quite a task), I wonder:
In terms of execution speed for large procedures (not returning a value) which are repeated often, is a Sub faster than a Function, or slower, or the same?
Has anyone tested it or any clue about that?
In advance, thank you!
Best regards,
JBC
Note: also posted on...
Speed of Sub vs. Function when not returning a value? | Chandoo.org Excel Forums - Become Awesome in Excel
I know that we rather use a Sub than a Function when we do not return a value from a procedure.
However, here is a case whereby all the code in a Module (even when not returning a value) has been written with Functions instead of Subs.
Before changing everything (quite a task), I wonder:
In terms of execution speed for large procedures (not returning a value) which are repeated often, is a Sub faster than a Function, or slower, or the same?
Has anyone tested it or any clue about that?
In advance, thank you!
Best regards,
JBC
Note: also posted on...
Speed of Sub vs. Function when not returning a value? | Chandoo.org Excel Forums - Become Awesome in Excel
