> If you're storing references to larger objects, your larger objects are what's taking up the space, which I think was the point (66% more pointers are useless

> If you're storing references to larger objects, your larger objects are what's taking up the space, which I think was the point (66% more pointers are useless if you can't also store 66% more of the objects they point to). Right, of course... > I really don't know all that much about architecture (yet), so that's totally possible, and I might be wrong about the 66% thing I guess. edit: Actually, about the whole more objects thing, there might be some strange use case where you only have a few objects but are storing multiple references to them in a list. But yeah, in general, the benefit goes down with larger objects.