From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-02-03T22:19:39+09:00
Subject: Re: %L, %l revisited

On Monday, February 3, 2003, 11:55:06 PM, Tom wrote:

> On Monday 03 February 2003 05:35 am, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>> This is misguided, IMNO (N = Naive).  24 bytes of wasted space - who
>> cares?  tabto(0) is a waste of processing - who cares?  Neither of
>> them is in a tight loop.

> when you write a cgi app and you're displaying some record detail that repeats 
> a string loop potentially hundreds of times then these bytes add up. the poor 
> soul on a dialup connection cares. and besides, nothing personal, but that 
> opinion is what leads to much of the bloated/sluggish software we have today.

In that case, you're unlikely to use a here document, although I doubt
any of the alternatives are super fast.  I still maintain that the
extra bytes are negligable compared to any variable inlining you would
be doing, as well as other processing.  And I don't think %l and %L
are going to make a difference.

And the antidote to sluggish software is to consider the important
bytes (or other resources), not every single one.

Admission: I've never written a CGI app.  But I do use a dialup :(

Gavin