Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:44:47 -0500
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:44:39 -0700
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Why "lock" functionality is introduced for all the objects?
References: <d0bb9e06-16f0-4282-a37e-47e9ca9630ec@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <iuce66$2nh$1@news.albasani.net> <iud083$2jr$1@news.onet.pl> <iud1u5$f4r$1@news.albasani.net> <iud4f6$lcm$1@news.onet.pl> <iud5js$nno$1@news.albasani.net> <iud66f$8al$1@speranza.aioe.org> <J5KdnRBP4eYkvZfTnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <iud80u$ci0$2@speranza.aioe.org> <rYCdnRgQGaQjsZfTnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d@earthlink.com> <iudd1r$1cv$1@dont-email.me>
In-Reply-To: <iudd1r$1cv$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <gqOdnZbmUNyioJfTnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 17
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.230.196.78
X-Trace: sv3-ZAW8E9fB1pMvmAyB3/KqhyloPQepzkhCLvbLDGeZryAsv2OS01i8VsS0s3bQcOeKdAHiFM35wq8jOA1!sM8zflAVHh2aJlmNjT2AijAUUzuij7Bqz8ZGhj6/JmVs9YHKzM1iDcn1DN5PfhxLruiZmQwbJmLb!JzpdEiRIu5wz9117UiFS2x3XhGRmGDvYg6J1OWtHMaa7ow==
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2247
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5752

On 6/28/2011 1:20 PM, markspace wrote:
> On 6/28/2011 12:34 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>
>> If, for your purposes, minimal memory use is very important, you may
>> want to consider other languages with other trade-offs.
>
>
> Or rolling your own, via the CharSequence interface, for example.
>

I don't think that would solve the whole problem. There are many API
constructors and methods that require String, not CharSequence. Also, I
think the everything-lockable policy and the design of String are
typical of Java design trade-offs that often consider memory footprint
no more important than convenience and other aspects of efficiency.

Patricia