Hi! On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:27, Bernd Fondermann<bf_...@brainlounge.de> wrote: > It's not 'easier'. It would use less objects, yet not neccessarily much > less memory though. Think about it: Queueing up the character data needs > much more memory: what's now stored as 1 immutable inner object (and > it's children) is then multiplexed into 1000s of character streams. > Probably this would need much more memory! (And don't tell me now to > store in special string objects what's unchanged, because this is what > we are doing now right now with immutable objects!)
:D, no I won't. You're right the character data would take a lot more space than the objects do now. Sorry for taking a bit longer to grasp that, and thanks for the explanation ;) Michael
