Speed of Sub vs. Function when not returning a value?

[BizJack]

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 (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,
Jack

 

[Hui]

Jack

I doubt there is any difference in the speed of a Sub or Function.
Both are simply VBA and will run at the same speed when doing the same work
Functions return values and Subroutines don't, although they can be written to write data back to Excel.

Most Sub's slow down when passing data through the Excel/VBA interface, although this is minimised when passing data through as array, rather than cell by cell

Can you be more specific about what you are doing and why you want to transfer it from a Function to a Subroutine ?

http://www.excelfunctions.net/VBA-Functions-And-Subroutines.html

 

[BizJack]

Thanks Hui.
I don't need to transfer from Functions to Subroutines. But since the Functions are not returning values and that Subs are meant for that, I was just wondering if a speed gain could be possible.
All the best!
Jacques

 

[Colin Legg]

It won't make any difference to performance.