On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 23:54 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 04:20:16AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 21:17 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote: > > > > > > Incidentally, I would differ from the reviewer in the link above only in > > > this respect: He maintains that every line of code adds time. While this > > > is true, I believe it's the number of files which have to be opened > > > which drags down framework numbers the most. When I wrote C code, the > > > CPU would blaze through the actual code, but file opens and reads > > > consumed far more time than in-memory code execution. > > > > Moot point if you're using an accelerator like eAccelerator or APC since > > these cache the data in memory. Similarly, most operating systems cache > > file reads also, so it's probably not as expensive without an > > accelerator as you think either. > > Perhaps, but since much of the C code I've written is on Linux servers > like those used by most of the hosting companies, and since I can't > control whether they do or don't cache pages, my personal experience > (and simple logic) guides me to believe file manipulation is far more > time consuming than simple manipulation of strings, number and arrays.
A goo compile cache will take care of that if you tell it not to bother checking for newer source files. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
