• To: "K. Ari Krupnikov" <ari@c...>
• Subject: Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
• From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
• Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:26:42 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <86y8p84qh3.fsf@f...>
• References: <40716EFF.4050405@a...> <407182A3.5090502@o...> <40729C26.1080806@c...> <4072A4C0.8010504@a...> <86y8p84qh3.fsf@f...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007

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/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
  • RE: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: "Paul Sumner Downey" <Paul.Downey@w...>

• References:
  • Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: Bob Foster <bob@o...>
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: Mark Schmeets <mark@c...>
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: David Megginson <dmeggin@a...>
  • Re: Eclipse: the new Emacs? (and the XML story)
    • From: ari@c... (K. Ari Krupnikov)

• Prev by Date: RE: Competing Specifications - A Good or Bad Thing?
• Next by Date: Re: Can anyURI be empty?
• 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