Revision as of 21:43, 7 December 2008 edit 173.48.168.229 (talk) →Criticism ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:44, 11 December 2008 edit undo 24.218.218.95 (talk) changed "and not the memory that these objects use for they content" to "and not the memory that these objects use for their content" Next edit →
Line 24: == Criticism == Some publications do not recommend using object pooling, especially for objects that only use memory and hold no external resources [http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp11253/]. Opponents usually say that in modern languages with garbage collector the object allocation is relatively fast - the operator "new" needs only 10 instructions or about when than classic "new" - "delete" pair requires hundreds of them as it does more complex work. Also, the most of garbage collectors scan "live" object references and not the memory that these objects use for ~~they~~their content. This means that any number of "dead" objects without references can be discarded with the little cost. Differently, keeping the large number of "live" but unused objects increases duration of the garbage collection [http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp09275.html?ca=dgr-jw22JavaUrbanLegends]]. Removal of the direct memory management (putting the garbage collector instead) in the most cases actually make programs to run faster [http://www.cs.ubc.ca/local/reading/proceedings/spe91-95/spe/vol23/issue7/spe836.pdf]. == Examples ==

Object pool pattern: Difference between revisions