Posted by a human person on 11/21/06 22:10

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-9E1BE8.07560322112006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> In article <WISdnTYGHIUePP_YRVnyvQ@eclipse.net.uk>,
> "a human person" <ahum@nperson.com> wrote:
>
> > "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:doraymeRidThis-C59912.10552821112006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
> > > In article <vO-dnX7XW6IWo__YnZ2dnUVZ8sqdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk>,
> > > "a human person" <ahum@nperson.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > includes are great - i have a site with 40(more) pages each of
which
> > had a
> > > > menu on - so everytime i needed to change the menu i had to do it on
> > every
> > > > page, so i sat down one day changed all the content to php and made
the
> > > > header and menu and footer into includes. sorry for gushing but its
> > saved me
> > > > so much time in the long run.
> > >
> > > No, do please gush some more:
> > >
> > > How did it save you so much time with 40 pages?
> > >
> > because now when i change the menu i only have to do it once. instead of
40
> > odd times.
>
> Nope... I am not seeing the evidence that you have saved so much
> time? What time?
>
> Look, I am not trying to be awkward here or troll or provoke
> anyone. I appreciate the theoretical, even the practical savings
> in time over a long period or with many large sites. But what i
> am wondering about is how could you possibly be so pleased about
> the time you have saved when it could hardly be measurable?
>
> Every time includes are discussed, someone says how you don't
> have to edit lots and lots of files on your own machine. For
> starters. But this paints a completely false picture of any
> intelligent approach to altering even huge numbers of files
> considering there really is only one action you need to take,
> that is: use any decent text editor's Find and Replace to change
> all the files in any given directory or folder. Modern machines
> take no time at all to do this.
>
> As for uploading the changed files to a remote server, yes, this
> is definitely more time consuming, especially for dialup (I was
> on it for years and damn hell, I wish I had looked into
> includes!) But on broadband, it is hardly a significant time
> thing - especially if you have your file structure well managed
> so you can grab all the html...
>
> In your time savings you need to factor in all the fiddling about
> to get includes going, issues to do with file names, server set
> ups and prior bookmarks. The experienced will find these things a
> breeze, for sure. But not everyone!
>
> As for energy savings, elegance, avoiding a "stupidish" approach,
> this is different altogether. These things are real! But I doubt
> there can be any time savings for the web developer to speak of
> with most sites.
>
> --
i dont know about most sites only the ones i play with. i run a poetry
publishing website and on a regular basis i have to add poets books etc to
the menu and i used to hate even thinking about having to go through all the
pages adding to the menu (in my ignorance i have no idea what 'find and
replace' is). once i had decided to move to 'includes' i just put a nice
polite notice on the websites index page alerting people of the change and
advising them to update any bookmarks. so whether or not i have saved as
much time as i think i have i have peace of mind when it comes to doing
adding to the menu, and that alone is worth its weight in gold.

[Back to original message]