pass by reference  
Index ‹ java-programmer
Author Message
Lew
PostPosted: 2008-4-8 19:41:00 Top
java-programmer, pass by reference Lew wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> You really are an apologist for imprecision here.
>
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> Is this supposed to be more or less insulting than
>>> my "language police" or perhaps same level?
>
> No, it's a literal description of actions. I have not known "apologist"
> to be considered an insult heretofore, and you have explicitly presented
> arguments as to when and why imprecise expression of the concept is
> appropriate. How is that insulting?
>
> It's not like I called you stupid or any other pejorative. I just gave
> a literal description of your behavior.

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> And in what way is "language police" anything else than the same?

Hey, I am not the one who called either phrase an insult.

My point was that "simply applying pejoratives to the truth will not make it
less true". By labeling the apologists for precision in a thread devoted to
the precise definition "language police", you were diverting the issue.

By coming back at me to call my comments an insult, you were again diverting
the issue by resorting to superfluous labels.

--
Lew
 
Lew
PostPosted: 2008-4-8 19:41:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference Lew wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>> You really are an apologist for imprecision here.
>
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> Is this supposed to be more or less insulting than
>>> my "language police" or perhaps same level?
>
> No, it's a literal description of actions. I have not known "apologist"
> to be considered an insult heretofore, and you have explicitly presented
> arguments as to when and why imprecise expression of the concept is
> appropriate. How is that insulting?
>
> It's not like I called you stupid or any other pejorative. I just gave
> a literal description of your behavior.

Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> And in what way is "language police" anything else than the same?

Hey, I am not the one who called either phrase an insult.

My point was that "simply applying pejoratives to the truth will not make it
less true". By labeling the apologists for precision in a thread devoted to
the precise definition "language police", you were diverting the issue.

By coming back at me to call my comments an insult, you were again diverting
the issue by resorting to superfluous labels.

--
Lew
 
Andreas Leitgeb
PostPosted: 2008-4-8 20:29:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>>> [Lew quoted a personal email]
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> [Lew quoted a personal email]

Since you didn't yet seem to know: It's generally considered
impolite to quote back *personal* email-replies to the news-
group.

 
 
Lew
PostPosted: 2008-4-8 20:35:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>> In a language neutral definition of "call by reference", I just can't
>>> see how picking a very concrete low-level definition of the
>>> words "parameter" and "address" can be claimed to be the only one
>>> reasonable.
>> This is especially true of Java, where the low-level details of addresses can
>> vary in the face of HotSpot optimizations.
>
> What? What? Can it be? Does this sounds like some sort of agreeing
> to this particular point?

Of course I agree. You spoke the truth.

--
Lew
 
 
Lew
PostPosted: 2008-4-8 20:39:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
>>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>>>> [Lew quoted a personal email]
>> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>>>> [Lew quoted a personal email]
>
> Since you didn't yet seem to know: It's generally considered
> impolite to quote back *personal* email-replies to the news-
> group.

Since you didn't seem to know, it's considered impolite to send so-called
"personal" emails on a public topic. You wrote me on a newsgroup topic, which
is a public discussion. You revealed no confidences, nor did you request
confidentiality. Nor did I request private responses on this public
discussion. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

How are you concluding that your definition of politeness is general? There
are many people who prefer to keep the public conversation on the public
board. I am neither the first nor only person to bring the conversation back
onto the board when someone took it off line inappropriately. In fact, based
on my observation of Usenet generally and clj.programmer particularly, it's
more generally considered impolite to respond privately to a public conversation.


--
Lew
 
 
Andreas Leitgeb
PostPosted: 2008-4-8 21:33:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
>> Since you didn't yet seem to know: It's generally considered
>> impolite to quote back *personal* email-replies to the news-
>> group.
> Since you didn't seem to know, it's considered impolite to send so-called
> "personal" emails on a public topic.

I stand that I didn't know of any netiquette against mailing
replies about off-topic issues off-public. - The discussion
of what statements are insults or not *was* off-topic here.
I leave it to the others to judge the severity of our misdeeds.
I will not mail you any further private mails of that kind.

--
Sorry for these two exceptions. My next postings will be on-topic.
 
 
Arved Sandstrom
PostPosted: 2008-4-9 0:14:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference "Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[ SNIP ]
>> Point being, and I made another recent post to this effect, very many
>> people do understand the distinction between pass by value and pass by
>> reference, but also call "passing a pointer by value" passing by
>> reference. You can
>
> Which is incorrect.

It's incorrect and imprecise in the context of this thread in this Java
newsgroup.

>> call this imprecise...me myself, if I am satisfied that the person
>> actually understands that they are passing a pointer by value, and not a
>> true reference, don't lose sleep if they use the term "pass by
>> reference".
>
> But this thread is not such a casual conversation. This thread is
> specifically about the meaning of "pass by reference", therefore precision
> is mandatory.

I have been converted to that position.

>> But when talking to Java folks I'll be very careful from now on. :-)
>
> You should extend that to all aspects of professional discipline as a
> programmer, not just Java.

Oh, I believe I do, Lew. I use as much precision of speech as is demanded in
a particular situation.

AHS


 
 
Lew
PostPosted: 2008-4-9 7:50:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference "Lew" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>> You should extend that to all aspects of professional discipline as a
>> programmer, not just Java.

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> Oh, I believe I do, Lew. I use as much precision of speech as is demanded in
> a particular situation.

I apologize for improperly phrasing my comment. I should have said, "*One*
should extend that...", instead of saying, "You ...". Sorry.

--
Lew
 
 
timjowers
PostPosted: 2008-4-11 0:53:00 Top
java-programmer >> pass by reference On Apr 4, 11:05 am, "email***@***.com"
<email***@***.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Thanks for all the answers, I'm kind of surprised that a simple
> question got so many answers! is this statement correct:
>
> Everything in Java are passed by value, in the case of an object, a
> reference to the object is passed, which is a value too, updating the
> fields in the reference does reflect the changes. anyway, maybe I
> should not try to understand java in a C++ manner.
>
> but i can't help, String is a object, so a reference should be the one
> passed, and why we can not update the field in the String object? and
> then where is the field of the String?
>
> Angelo
>
> On Apr 4, 9:21 pm, Patricia Shanahan <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
> > Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> > > Lew <email***@***.com> wrote:

Mostly correct Angelo. I say "Everything is passed by a value of a
reference". That's more like what you'd mean from the C concept of
"reference". The C concept of "reference" and "pointer" grow form a
microprocessor terminology. The Java "reference" is the same concept
as from SmallTalk. Or a "handle" in Windows/Win32. That is, do not
expect to be able to de-reference or do other pointer/reference
tricks. You are correct in your statement that all args are a ref but
some are to immutable types (e.g. String) so the JVM creates new
objects any time those are assigned. In that respect, a String is
like a String in Visual Basic.

In Java you wind up creating a container class and sticking stuff into
it. You also end up using alot more ArrayList/other ADT's. I.e. use
StringBuffer to pass to a method.

Best,
TimJowers
 
 
 
Index ‹ java-programmer