Michael Jakl wrote: > 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 > ;)
No problem. You don't know how long it took me to figure this out in the first place! ;-) Bernd
