Can you tell me whether or not my program accomplishes what I said it should accomplish, and was I efficient with my coding, or are you just going to springboard into analogies even though I never made such direct comparisons?
Chill, Dude. I'm sorry if I accused of something you had not intended. I just saw it as a similar thing as DNA, that's all.
My knowledge of 6800 code started in '77, when I first realized that programmable devices could simulate a whole LOT of hardwired circuitry. (This was the days when the first S-100 buss home computers were being sold, and S-100 memory was going for about $100 for 1k, on a circuit-board half the size of this keyboard!)
At an eletronic manufacturing symposium, I took notice of a small breadboard setup that was displaying an LED 7 segment clock. After talking to the rep, and discovering it was a microcomputer kit, I just HAD to have one. So I plunked down my $300 bucks and received: A 6800 CPU, a 6820 I/O chip, 8 7 segment displays, a hexidecimal key pad, about 2k of ROM and a whopping 256 BYTES of RAM!
This baby would load programs at a BLINDING 300 baud from any old taperecorder, and, after typing in the clock code, the wife says, after I am just AMAZED that it works, "So; we have a three hundred dollar clock."; totally unimpressed.
The ROM had the LED drivers in a subroutine, the keys were de-bounced in a subroutine, the I/O of the tape was handled as well in ROM. I found really fast that to get this thing to do much, I had to make REALLY tight code.
I managed to interface an ASCII keyboard to it as well as a ASCII output board (TV interface) so I could type things and they'd appear on the screen. Now THAT was a bit more impressive, since very few people had ANY access to computing in those days.
ASSEMBLY language? Bah! Hand coding was the only thing that worked on this machine. Although I found out later that BIG computers have the programs available to write things for the breadboard.)
Getting back to YOUR code, I have no way to tell if it could be done 'better'.
If it functions as the Designer intended, I'd leave it alone. Now, if the Designer would like to use less memory or faster loops, then the parameters have changed and a re-look IS called for.
Good luck.