is C appropriate for intro to computers?

**Mario F.** · 10-14-2008

Originally Posted by zacs7

That is moronic...

Let's pretend what had been said was "It's my opinion in C we should not say pass by reference, but pass by pointer". It's an whole can of worms, but yes it's an opinion like any other. And I'd be a moron. Meanwhile, for the sake of the establishment the same person that would have said the above would keep saying "pass by reference", because despite not being particularly in agreement with it, understood it was an established term.

More important, said person would also understand sooner or later (or be told) that the term "pass by reference" doesn't have anything to do with C++ references at all. It exists to describe the act of passing a value indirectly through an indicator value. And armed with this knowledge would cease their opinion and go "aha! That explains it then. My opinion doesn't make sense then"

But not in this case. Said opinion is kept, thrown at every other opportunity, and completely ignores maybe(?) the last 50 years of computing science. So yeah! Who the hell is she to have an opinion on this matter, may I ask?

**Elysia** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by Mario F.

What opinion?
I'm sure you know you were not born yet, and C was already saving lifes in Nuclear Power Stations.

EDIT: Which means... who are you to have an opinion?

Then let me ask YOU: who are you to decide who may have opinions and who does not?

Originally Posted by zacs7

> I still don't buy it, though. In C, it's pass by pointer, nothing more, nothing less
Huh? Don't think of it like that, think of it as pass by value, nothing more, nothing less

Oh yeah, we could do that, but then it becomes a problem when we say "pass by value if you want to function to change the original variable"

The pointers are still passed by value...

. That being said, everyone will know what you mean when you say "passing by reference" in C -- so it's not wrong IMO.

Yeah, I know everyone understands it (I do, too), but I still insist on calling it pass by pointer.
That's not just because C++ has references, but because it's actually a pointer, so a more "correct" term IMHO would be pass by pointer. Poor choice of wording for the functionality in the first place.
But it also conflicts with the C++ references, which is certainly something I don't like, so yeah...

Originally Posted by Mario F.

But not in this case. Said opinion is kept, thrown at every other opportunity, and completely ignores maybe(?) the last 50 years of computing science. So yeah! Who the hell is she to have an opinion on this matter, may I ask?

Again, who are you to decide? Opinions are private, they need not affect everyone else.
On the other hand, deciding what should be or shouldn't be might be a different matter.

**CornedBee** · 10-15-2008

Poor choice of wording for the functionality in the first place.

Except that "pass by reference" is older even than C.

**maxorator** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by Elysia

But it also conflicts with the C++ references, which is certainly something I don't like, so yeah...

If there is a conflict, it's C++'s fault since it came later...

**laserlight** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by Elysia

That's not just because C++ has references, but because it's actually a pointer, so a more "correct" term IMHO would be pass by pointer.

A pointer is a reference since it refers to what it points to. Personally, if I feel that there is need to be precise in C++, I would say "pass a pointer" rather than "pass by pointer". This is akin to saying "pass an integer" rather than "pass by integer".

**Elysia** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by CornedBee

Except that "pass by reference" is older even than C.

But the thing was that "pass by pointer" was closer to the language than "pass by reference" since it is a pointer that's used. I think they should have used a better language term in C in the first place.

Originally Posted by laserlight

A pointer is a reference since it refers to what it points to. Personally, if I feel that there is need to be precise in C++, I would say "pass a pointer" rather than "pass by pointer". This is akin to saying "pass an integer" rather than "pass by integer".

Well, not a bad idea, I guess. Pass a pointer it is. Makes sense.

**whiteflags** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by Elysia

Opinions are private, they need not affect everyone else.

Perhaps this is the reason why you insist your opinions are fine in spite of everyone's judgment. Things are only private so long as nobody else knows. When you explain your opinion in a public place you will likely meet persuasive voices. What you do in response to that is your business, but if you also say your mind can't be changed, well, that's arrogant. Sometimes it is better to be quiet, especially if you know your opinion sucks. Just pointing that out again.

**abachler** · 10-15-2008

It comes down to the inadequacy of spoken language to fully express the details of evey aspect fo the C/C++ language(s). It has been called pass by reference for decades, neither way is more or less correct, so changing it would only serve to spread confusion, which makes 'pass by pointer' inherently a bad idea. Change can be good, but change for the sake of change is almost always stupid.

**Elysia** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by citizen

What you do in response to that is your business, but if you also say your mind can't be changed, well, that's arrogant.

Perhaps. Listening to others is important and I certainly do.
I don't know what to say - it's like it's etched inside me or something. I have a dislike towards it and it isn't easing even with all the counter arguments.
So I typically just "sneak" them in, by joking or using my own phrases when explaining things, instead of outright declaring something wrong and correcting it.

Originally Posted by citizen

Sometimes it is better to be quiet, especially if you know your opinion sucks. Just pointing that out again.

Yeah, I learned that. But it's also arrogant to tell people that they aren't allowed opinions.
Just a thought.

**whiteflags** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by Elysia

So I typically just "sneak" them in, by joking or using my own phrases when explaining things, instead of outright declaring something wrong and correcting it.

Well that's missing the point. Part of the reason you found yourself in this mess ten pages ago is because you wouldn't call something by its name. If you do that all the time you will earn a reputation as a troll, particularly someone who doesn't know what they're talking about while instigating arguments.

**Elysia** · 10-15-2008

And "pass by reference" is the "correct" name?
And the members of this board could lighten up, as well, methinks. No need to get worked up because someone uses another way of describing something or naming something.
There's plenty of people who calls this...

Code:

int x;

...declaring x while in standardese, it's called defining x.
I use a different name, that's all.

So, um... yeah. I'm going to stop my involvement in this discussion here.

**laserlight** · 10-15-2008

...declaring x while in standardese, it's called defining x.

A definition is a declaration too!

**Elysia** · 10-15-2008

But we're passing a pointer, aren't we? So it's the same to say pass a pointer as pass by reference.

**~~master5001~~** · 10-15-2008

I am a big fan of objective C.

**tabstop** · 10-15-2008

Originally Posted by master5001

I am a big fan of objective C.

[master5001 [setFan language:obj-c]]

Gah. I let someone talk me into learning objective C (not that it's necessarily an inherently bad language, but the syntax is ... something not C like, to my mind).