It was a while ago I did those things, but if it was cloning, than that was what I meant.
Is it proven that cloning of objects is more efficient than using new (and factories)?

On 10/22/05, Sean Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Arjan Seesing wrote:

> It is not a change I really made throughout the library, but all the code
> I've written doesn't use the object recycling which is prevalent throughout
> ECJ. I don't have any numbers, but it is generaly accepted that object
> creation is so cheap, that it is useless to recycle large amounts of small
> objects and that it will actually slow the program down. It also introduces
> extra unneeded complexity in the design of ECJ and I rather see it go than
> stay.

I'm pressed to think of a single example of object recycling in ECJ.
Maybe the Population arrays perhaps?  What ECJ *does* do is call clone
rather than new.  But that's hardly object recycling.