title: Does php increase a page loading time?
body: <p>I used php on my <a href="http://diogonunes.com/about" rel="nofollow">website</a> so it can display multiple languages. I noticed the size of the html files reduced because most of the text was moved to a new large php file, which contains all "idiomatic" text in all languages available (just two in my case).</p>
  
  <p>My problem is: Previously a html page was downloaded with just the necessary text. Now a smaller html page is downloaded but a large php file is always included, whether the html uses more or less lines of it.</p>
  
  <p>Questions:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>When a php file is included (<code>include_once(file.php);</code> or <code>require_once(file.php);</code>) what is happening? Is the content of the <code>file.php</code> being copied to the html? Is it just used to say to the language processor "If you need to resolve a name, you may want to look at <code>file.php</code>"?</li>
  <li>What is more (speed) efficient; to have one large php with every language of every html page inside; <strong>or</strong> to have one php file per html page only with the code needed by that page?</li>
  <li>Should a php be included right before being used, <strong>or</strong> should be a general include at the top of the page that gets most of the php that will eventually be used along the html page?</li>
  <li>Finally, does php increase a page loading time?</li>
  </ol>
  
  <p>P.S: Anyone tried <a href="http://aciddrop.com/php-speedy/" rel="nofollow">PHP Speedy</a>? Does it really works? Does it have any problems (compatibility) ?</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>I found out:</p>
  
  <ol>
  <li>(check solution)</li>
  <li>Both solutions have exactly the same performance. I chose to separate the file by language because it feels tidier.</li>
  <li>Same as above, no impact on performance.</li>
  </ol>