autoloading doesn't do anything but follow a set of logic rules to decide what file to require, so it doesn't mess with opcode caches at all. On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Nathan Nobbe <quickshiftin@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Tony Marston < > tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > > > > > "Eddie Drapkin" <oorza2k5@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message > > news:68de37340905280801m6964d355l2d6d8ef773f3bc4f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > There's a huge difference between laziness and opting in to use an > > > incredibly useful (and easy to properly deploy) feature to save myself > > > time > > > so that I can spend more time writing that structured and efficient > code > > > of > > > which you speak. And the problem with what you're saying is that you > > > still > > > have to include 'singleton.php' somewhere in order to call its static > > > methods, > > > > I have a single general purpose include file which autmatically includes > > all > > other standard files, so I never have to explicity load my singleton > class. > > > > > and I'd rather just spend 30 minutes writing an autoloader object > > > and letting it deal with finding any of the classes I use then trying > to > > > keep track of legacy code I didn't write and require'ing them all over > > the > > > place. > > > > I'd rather not waste 30 minutes of my time writing a feature that I don't > > need. > > > > The difference between using and not using the autoload feature does not > > have any measurable impact on either my development times, nor the > > execution > > of my code, so I choose to not use it. That's my choice, and I'm sticking > > to > > it. > > > > > The way I look at it, if you spend all your time handling things that > you > > > could automate - and if written properly, will always work as expected > > > (it's > > > called unit testing and debugging) - then you have no time to write > that > > > structured and efficient code in order to meet your deadlines! :) > > > > Not using autoload does not have any noticeable effect on my deadlines, > so > > I > > have no incentive to use it. Just because you say that I *should* use it > > carries no weight at all. > > > this simple fact is that autoloading is something anyone can implement > themselves. take a look at code igniters $this->load() arrangement. > basically they do dynamic loading rather than requires, and thats part of > the reason for the massive performance advantage it has over other > frameworks. > > autoloading is nice because it affords a somewhat standard approach to a > common issue. sure, you could do something like ci, but i say why bother, > why not just use __autoload() and freinds now that php offers it as a > feature. then again, if you already have some dynamic loading system, of > course theres no real call to move to __autoload(). (and of course ci is > written w/ php4 support in mind, which obviously eliminates __autoload in > their scenario) > > im also skeptical of the advantages dynamic loading offers in systems > running an opcode cache. essentially after initially caching a scripts > opcodes, successive include/require calls are a hit to the cache to see its > already there. im sure dynamic loading is offers dramatic performance > gains > systems not running opcode caches though. > > -nathan >
