• To: "Bob Foster" <bob@o...>,"K. Ari Krupnikov" <ari@c...>
• Subject: RE: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• From: "Paul Sumner Downey" <Paul.Downey@w...>
• Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 07:31:24 +0100
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <407366E2.6080700@o...>

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@o...]
Sent: 07 April 2004 03:27
To: K. Ari Krupnikov
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: Re:  Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)


K. Ari Krupnikov wrote:
 > David Megginson <dmeggin@a...> 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>

• References:
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Can anyURI be empty?
• Next by Date: Re: xpath in javascript
• Previous by thread: Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• Next by thread: Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread