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 <quickshif...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Tony Marston <
> > wrote:
> > "Eddie Drapkin" <oorza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:68de37340905280801m6964d355l2d6d8ef773f3b...@mail.gmail.com...
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > structured and efficient code in order to meet your deadlines! :)
> > Not using autoload does not have any noticeable effect on my deadlines,
> > 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
> 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
> systems not running opcode caches though.