Jim,
I may be reading this incorrectly, but it doesn't sound right to me.
I see "A" as having to be in RAM as well as "B" when "B" is a subclass of "A" (which I assume 'derived from' means).
I don't see how the size of "A" is in any way dependent on the size of "B" or vise-versa when "B" is a subclass of "A".
I suspect I'm mis-reading something here.
regards,
Jim N
>Calvin,
>
>Excuse me for jumping in here, but I happened to come across this thread and got interested.
>
>I would add to Vlad's response that when A is derived from B, A and B are both in memory, but A's contents are much smaller then B's because A contains a reference to B and instructions on what changes were made in B to produce A.
>
>When you instantiate A and test for memmory used, the derive A from B, the amount of memory used is much less than double. Clearly then A is referencing B for a lot of the information used to create A.
>
>What that tells me is that if I create B then derive one instance from it, I have actually used up more memory than if I just used B instead of deriving A from it and using A. But if I derive A, C, D, E, and F., the memory savings are considerable over using B five times.
>
>regards,
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only