Hi!

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:27, Bernd Fondermann<bf_jak@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 ;)

Michael