Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Bulk Array Element Allocation, is it faster?
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 20:19:30 +0200
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <j5nrbj$7fq$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <j5lvf0$bhl$1@news.albasani.net> <Ypydnd8C3rt7G-PTnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@earthlink.com> <9e8fplF19bU1@mid.individual.net> <j5n3qv$dbo$1@news.albasani.net> <9e8kdhF6lmU1@mid.individual.net> <j5ncco$hl$1@news.albasani.net> <j5nflh$onl$1@dont-email.me> <j5nggm$a42$1@news.albasani.net> <13107318.1206.1316973732647.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prfp37>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net eKTuLUNB9/ZcS3XIKiLauTV9Ne26zYOXOoarbAn6/2xFfjCOW6Vp1SAbiDPosjG407nChMk7pdyqinK6mbR7zg==
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 18:19:31 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="Qy7gqmNoKFMyye2Wf9U33+K/5eowqbxoh5qtOuiUDTri0j5y8yW1/kGhgj3dTcr0mK1nxyXGn7eygV6Oy5rVbiGTTg/CQacjc7u3GtYd34062OHg+CvYJ4fjfw21Uywu"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Firefox/6.0.2 SeaMonkey/2.3.3
In-Reply-To: <13107318.1206.1316973732647.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@prfp37>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:BqGz63jCaza562fceR/QE64dUDg=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8302

Lew schrieb:
> This is equally true of primitive arrays.  Why do you claim otherwise?

No, I don't claim otherwise. new int[] and new double[]
would also need treatment when the values 0 and 0.0
are not appropriate.

But you never run into a null-pointer exception with
primitive arrays, so they are a little bit more ready
made than non-primitive arrays.

Bye