RE: Cost of instantiating -- JAVA400-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: RE: Cost of instantiating
From: "Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 11:09:57 -0500
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/java400-l>
List-help: <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Java Programming on and around the iSeries / AS400 <java400-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:java400-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l>, <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/java400-l>, <mailto:java400-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

> From: Paul Morgan
> Why do you use Integer objects?  Just for an object creation example?
If
> you don't use an object in the first place you don't have to worry
about
> performance with object creation.

This is a really good point, Paul.  Primitives in Java require much,
much less overhead than objects.

Joe

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.