Adding images does not negate the shaved microseconds. I see what you mean, but it doesn't literally negate the saved load. The images would be there whether or not the includes are used. I'm sure there are millionaires out there who still pinch pennies.
That being said, I do appreciate your point, and I'm not one to go overboard with these kinds of things. However, it is quite simply a matter of three ways to do this with one being faster. Why would I, for something so fundamental to my application (used on every pageview across the network), not use the fastest method unless it brought some great inconvenience to me?
Since I am already restructuring things, it would not bring about much inconvenience to me. I do expect my sites growth to be quite substantial over the coming year, so it can't hurt to pinch my pennies now, even if I currently have an embarassment of riches.
Some day a millionaire might lose everything, except for the jar of pennies he has on his dresser.
Raditha Dissanayake wrote:
It is my understanding, as disk reads are so slow, that it is not a good idea to include multiple files. I always knew this, but I never really thought about it.
Rob, you will find people who religiously avoid includes have pages that include dozens and dozens of images there by negating the microseconds gained by not using includes. I will refrain from commenting on the rest of the mail primarily because i feel trying to shave a few milliseconds here or there by changing the includes, moving from double to single quotes etc are all futile efforts. Real speed and scalability comes from algorithms backed up by tight coding.
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
