[development] coding standard question

[Steve Rude]

Fair enough.  The only things I would disagree with is that 1) Just 
because there are only 2500 in the source code doesn't mean that they 
don't get looped over quite a bit, and 2) my Mac Pro Quad Xeon with 4GB 
of memory behaves all that much different than the Quad Xeon 4GB 
webservers that we and our clients have deployed :)

The original question came out of the coder module which recommended 
these changes for better "performance", and I looked into it, and 
several other projects recommend using lower case for these constants, 
as well as a couple bugs on the php.net bug list.  I actually prefer 
writing with upper case, so the only point was if there was any real 
world gain.

Here are the links I had found:

http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=27286&edit=1
http://framework.zend.com/wiki/display/ZFDEV/PHP+Coding+Standard+(draft)?showComments=false#PHPCodingStandard%28draft%29-BooleansandtheNULLValue
http://drupal.org/node/121388
http://ilia.ws/archives/12-PHP-Optimization-Tricks.html


Other PHP software that use lower case true, false and null standard:

PEAR Standard - http://pear.php.net/manual/en/standards.naming.php
Joomla - http://help.joomla.org/content/view/826/125/
Mambo - http://www.source.mambo-foundation.org/content/view/117/69/
EZ Publish - http://ez.no/ezpublish/documentation/development/standards/php
Flyspray - http://flyspray.org/internal:conventions#constant_names
OSCommerce - 
http://svn.oscommerce.com/fisheye/browse/osCommerce/tags/oscommerce-2.2rc1/STANDARD?r=1662
phpMyAdmin - http://phpmyadmin.sourceforge.net/documentation/
Zen Cart - 
http://www.zen-cart.com/wiki/index.php/Developers_Standards#Naming_Conventions
phpBB - http://area51.phpbb.com/docs/coding-guidelines.html#optimizing


And finally, thank you Peter for updating the docs to clarify.

Sorry to be a performance nut, but I can't help it.  I think a lot of us 
are a little OCD sometimes :D

Steve Rude

Konstantin Käfer wrote:
>
>> 1326ms vs. 1382ms is 60ms, and when normal page load times are 
>> somewhere around 200ms, it makes a substantial difference.
>
> Even if we disregard the fact that microtime tests have a big stddev, 
> your test is not very convincing: You are using these constants 
> several hundred thousand times whereas Drupal only has 2500+ in its 
> *entire* source code. And of that source code, only a fraction gets to 
> execution. I'd estimate the number of constants that are actually 
> executed on a Drupal page view to about 500, and even that is probably 
> too high. If you extrapolate your results (60ms for 100000), you'll 
> get 0.3 msecs. Besides, a real world server behaves quite different 
> from a desktop machine, especially in such edge cases.
>
> Konstantin


-- 
Steve Rude + Lead Developer
*AchieveInternet*
(800) 618-8777 x 202

http://www.achieveinternet.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20070827/df038b3c/attachment.htm