>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".
>
Hi Jim,

If A is derived (or subclassed) from B, the B and A are both in memory in some form. But you are correct in that the size of A in memory is not related to the size of B in memory. A contains at minimum a reference to B, and it you have made no changes to A, that's about all it contains (actually I'm sure it contains information that relates it to its parent container object, etc., but generally it would be quite a bit smaller than its parent class because rather than copying the contents of the parent, it merely references them.

Obviously this is all logical supposition since I have never seen an object in memory (or at least anything that I recognized as an object). But I think it's correct.

regards,