[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
true, but it's not just a simple matter of nObjects*sizeOfObject,
there is the overhead of managing a heap of non-tessellating shapes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Foster [mailto:bob@objfac.com]
Sent: 07 April 2004 03:27
To: K. Ari Krupnikov
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
> David Megginson <dmeggin@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>>Java objects have an awful lot of built-in
>>memory overhead just for the java.lang.Object base class
>
> Do you know how much memory you actually use for a "new Object()"?
Yes, a pinch of actual fact would make a nice spice for this latest
round of the "objects cost too much" permathread.
Bob Foster
http://xmlbuddy.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
