3 ms·

IMHO, developer time is more expensive than CPU time; I don't want or need to have to write out all of those requires. That's the job of the autoloader. And if

by dpcx 10y ago

IMHO, developer time is more expensive than CPU time; I don't want or need to have to write out all of those requires. That's the job of the autoloader. And if I'm writing my code remotely well enough, each section only uses the things that it needs. Granted, there may be some things that each request get that they don't need with the autoloader. But I can optimize later. "Make it work, make it right, make it fast"

toast0 10y ago
Users' time is more important than developer time or CPU time. Burning cpu and maybe i/o looking for code all over the place is going to make it really hard to make it fast later.
avisser 10y ago
> I don't want or need to have to write out all of those requires. That's the job of the autoloader. Or the IDE. IntelliJ or ReSharper does that for me. And I like dealing with any naming conflicts right then and there, which those tools allow me to do.
Twirrim 10y ago
> IMHO, developer time is more expensive than CPU time; I don't want or need to have to write out all of those requires. Every wasted millisecond on the server side matters. It impacts scalability, customer experience (and revenue) etc. You should take every easy win you can get there. Not doing full includes is just ridiculously lazy. It doesn't take that long to write them out, and your IDE can help you out there. I bet you spend more time on social media during office hours than you'd ever save from not having to type out those import statements.
- bpicolo 10y ago
  Except you still need autoloading configured for most libraries in the ecosystem to work, unless you want to manually chain absolutely huge quantities of requires.
cagataygurturk 10y ago
> IMHO, developer time is more expensive than CPU time I see that you've never worked on a project where the CPU time needed to handle the traffic with crappy code is much more expensive than developer time to write efficient software.
- dpcx 10y ago
  I have. And one of my first steps after starting to clean things up is to switch to composer and autoload; because then I can start ripping things out much more easily, and still make improvements to both code quality and performance.

by dpcx 10y ago

toast0 10y ago

Users' time is more important than developer time or CPU time. Burning cpu and maybe i/o looking for code all over the place is going to make it really hard to make it fast later.

avisser 10y ago

> I don't want or need to have to write out all of those requires. That's the job of the autoloader. Or the IDE. IntelliJ or ReSharper does that for me. And I like dealing with any naming conflicts right then and there, which those tools allow me to do.

Twirrim 10y ago

> IMHO, developer time is more expensive than CPU time; I don't want or need to have to write out all of those requires. Every wasted millisecond on the server side matters. It impacts scalability, customer experience (and revenue) etc. You should take every easy win you can get there. Not doing full includes is just ridiculously lazy. It doesn't take that long to write them out, and your IDE can help you out there. I bet you spend more time on social media during office hours than you'd ever save from not having to type out those import statements.

bpicolo 10y ago
Except you still need autoloading configured for most libraries in the ecosystem to work, unless you want to manually chain absolutely huge quantities of requires.

cagataygurturk 10y ago

> IMHO, developer time is more expensive than CPU time I see that you've never worked on a project where the CPU time needed to handle the traffic with crappy code is much more expensive than developer time to write efficient software.

dpcx 10y ago
I have. And one of my first steps after starting to clean things up is to switch to composer and autoload; because then I can start ripping things out much more easily, and still make improvements to both code quality and performance.