== Quote from zoli (ga...@freemail.hu)'s article > > > If the new "operator" for the class is redesigned to have multiply allocation types > > > (allocate on heap, allocate on stack, etc.?), there is no main drawback > > > of using > > classes instead of structs for small objects( like vec2, vec3) as well. > > > > Yes there is. How about the cost of storing vtbl and monitor? Actually, > > just > I keep forgetting those (4-8) extra bytes per instance :) > And what about the final classes (with no ancestors)?
Even final classes w/ no explicit ancestors are implicitly subclasses of Object, which defines virtual functions. Therefore, *all* class instances must have a vtbl pointer.
