So I tested yours and I got 21 seconds for the 42nd prime palindrome.
Compared to mine, yours is 53 bytes less, too. You have a bunch of places that can be optimised for speed, though, so I tried a few things and here is what I have:
First, here are the main optimisations I made:
:If prod(Ans-{1,3,7,9
     Goes to:
:If 1<gcd(10,Ans           ;I actually used 'not equal', but this works, too

:If fPart(F/3
     Goes to:
:If remainder(F,3

:While Ans{^2}≤F and fPart(F/Ans) and fPart(F/(Ans+2
     Goes to:
:While Ans{^2}≤F and min(remainder(F,{Ans,Ans+2
There are a few more, too, but here is what I ended up with:
:DelVar EAns-5→N
:While 1
:E+1→E
:1+int(log(E→B
:If 1<gcd(10,int(E10^(1-Ans
:End
:10E→F
:E→D
:While iPart(D
:.1iPart(D→D
:10(F+fPart(Ans→F
:End
:For(H,0,9
:If remainder(F,3
:Then
:√(F→D
:7
:While Ans≤D and min(remainder(F,{Ans,Ans+4
:Ans+6
:End
:N-(Ans>D→N
:If not(Ans
:Return
:End
:End
:F+10^(B→F
:End
:End
Now it takes about 17 seconds to compute the 42nd prime palindrome and it is 24 bytes smaller

I have been trying to tweak it to get it even faster and I know that there must be a few optimisations that I am not seeing. It is 77 bytes smaller than mine and almost as fast, so that is really awesome.

...

After adjusting the prime checker thing even more, I made it much faster, and it is now faster than mine, at the cost of some bytes (still 59 bytes smaller than mine). For comparison, the version above takes 17 seconds to find palprime 42 and 86 seconds for palprime 100. This version takes 13 and 52 seconds, respectively.
:DelVar EAns-5→N
:While 1
:E+1→E
:1+int(log(E→B
:If 1<gcd(10,int(E10^(1-Ans
:End
:10E→F
:E→D
:While iPart(D
:.1iPart(D→D
:10(F+fPart(Ans→F
:End
:For(H,0,9
:If min(remainder(F,{3,7,11
:Then
:√(F→D
:13
:While Ans≤D and min(remainder(F,Ans+{0,4,6,10,16,18,24,28
:Ans+30
:End
:N-(Ans>D→N
:If not(Ans
:Return
:End
:End
:F+10^(B→F
:End
:End
Hopefully everything is typed properly.
EDIT: Made it even faster. Now 12 and 49 seconds respectively, using the same prime checking routine as my program.

@mdr1: Thanks for letting me know that, I never even thought about that possible error. I will have to allow 2nd+ON to exit the tutorial, too (currently ON allows you to exit early).

@Xeda:
When we call a label, it needs time to find it. We can put the address in a variable, but it needs memory and a new name for each label. So why not add a new type of label being automatically parsed at the start of the program so that the application doesn't have anymore to parse it each time it is called ? For example, such a label could be declared as :

Code: [Select]

..LABEL
And when we do "call LABEL" or "Goto LABEL", the address will be stored for all the program execution.

Hehe, that is something that I am already working on (I even have had code for almost a 10 months in Grammer for this).

PS : why not include to your .zip persalteas' tutorial ?

I include a link to it in the readme, but I should remember to put the actual PDF in there.

I have sent mine. Now I will probably think of some super awesome optimisation that I could have done

Wow, I thought this was already done and I hadn't submitted in time! I have my last exams today, so maybe I can work on my programs a little more.

It's fine. If I make Grammer 3 (hopefully this summer) it will be much more worth learning that. It will be about 1 gazillion times more powerful, I think.

I just thought: Why not including plugins( like mimas does for example)?

Sorry, I did not see this for a while. I was thinking of doing that, but I thought it would be too difficult. It would be really easy if the plugin was an app.

There have been quite a few uprates/downrates going on in this thread, so I would like to remind everybody of the rules:

Do not abuse the post-rating system.

• Rate posts by quality, not by opinion.
• All post-rating activity is recorded and visible to Managers and abuse will lead to bans.
• Don't complain incessantly over every negative rating you receive. Your life doesn't depend on your rating score.

It might be that I am not understanding this correctly, but the first part may have gotten abused a bit and so it is easily possible that several managers tried to correct it at the same time.

Sorry for derailing the topic. If you would like to continue, that should be fine, but this topic should have exhausted itself by now. It's message and intent has already been conveyed. If you would like to continue the topic of religion and piety, I would direct you to Other Discussions and advise civility (we have generally had a good track record for this with our regular user base).

[/mom-mode] :P