At 10:37 PM +0200 8/25/08, Bernhard Kohl wrote:
# Ok tedd, if you insist ..
Bernhard:
I wasn't insisting, but it's nice you picked up the Gauntlet.
Good work and it validates (but of course, you didn't think I would check?).
Your results:
Comma took: 0.0191585 milliseconds on average.
Concatenation: 0.0195376 milliseconds on average.
Interpolation: 0.0279227 milliseconds on average.
Heredoc: 0.0247411 milliseconds on average.
My results:
Comma took: 0.017329251766205 milliseconds on average.
Concatenation: 0.0011050462722778 milliseconds on average.
Interpolation: 0.0017022013664246 milliseconds on average.
Heredoc: 0.0035961031913757 milliseconds on average.
There are significant orders of magnitude difference between your
results and mine.
For example, it didn't make any difference if you used a comma or
concatenation, but in my system concatenation was 15 times faster
than using a comma. Interesting, I would have guessed it would have
been the other way around.
However in both, the end-user will never notice any difference unless
we are showing them over 50,000 commas and then the time it would
take the browser to show 50,000 commas will completely mask the one
second of server-side time required to provide that.
I predict in the near future, considering that cpu speed is
increasing and storage v cost is deceasing almost exponentially,
newer programmers will not even concern themselves with speed/storage
issues.
Similarity, current programmers in their 20's when reaching 50 will
be hearing younger programmers ask "What's caching?"
The cycle of programming continues.
Cheers,
tedd
--
-------
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
