To me it makes languages like C# a little more ambiguous since you just have to infer that everything is a reference while logicially assuming it may not always be one. So I don't think that was the world's finest example of your point C_ntua. I would rather explicitly know what is what.
I don't think this is a very good example, though.
Are you talking about practically as a language (ie, it falls short of other languages) or in terms of newbie friendliness?
Btw, there's a bug in the code (both Java and C++). Can you spot it?
Originally Posted by Adak
Two bugs. One return; and the other didn't put { for else.
I am talking about newbie friendliness! On the contrast, if you are not a newbie I agree with what master5001 said.
But the topic is about "intro".
EDIT: To elaborate more. You tell the newbie "See, you can pass objects as you can pass variables in functions using Java". In C++ you tell them "See, you pass a pointer/reference of the object since you don't want to create a copy of the object. The same as you do with variables". Why would the creators of C# have the default pass (no extra symbols or key words) be by reference and why would the creators of C++ have the default pass be by value? Because one is more focused on OOP the other is C with OOP features.
Effectively there is just syntax differences. But the syntax of a language makes it more or less easy to understand some basic programming ideas.
Last edited by C_ntua; 10-14-2008 at 02:02 PM.
I don't think it matters, though, because they still need to know about the whole thing with variables and references in the first place. And if they learn that, they can learn to append &.
Next example, please?
If you wish, you can ignore the cost of the copy for pedagogy reasons, and introduce it later when you want to teach about pass by reference. It is a matter of approach. Consider that Java is not immune to the difference either: eventually, you have to explain that although Java only has pass by value, you do not actually pass objects, but "references" to objects. I have witnessed this difference tripping up beginners to Java.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Just to second what laserlight said - that's been a legitimate problem with some "noobs" I work with. A fairly inexperienced programmer was working with a multi-threaded application and didn't understand why his code was causing problems. He was passing by reference, and changes were being made to the same object twice, and it ended up causing unpredictable results - he thought new copies of the object were being created every time - he didn't even know the first thing about addresses.
That is seriously disturbing...
(Although I still fail to see how he was able to "pass by reference", this being C [unless you're talking about C++?])
You should probably have that guy fired in one way or another. He seriously needs to get back to studying the language.
This being C, a language without references, you can talk about byref passing without tripping over the ambiguity.Although I still fail to see how he was able to "pass by reference", this being C
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
I still don't buy it, though. In C, it's pass by pointer, nothing more, nothing less
Although that's just a formed opinion...
And If my sources are correct, the term "passing by reference", predates C++ and was always used to describe pointer arguments in C
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Hey now, no need to get hung up on an opinion.
You've already mentioned this more than once.
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?
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
My apologies - let me clarify - that was a programmer who had only learned Java in school, and was using a language so similar to Java, that for the purposes of this conversation, let's call it Java. (Flex / ActionScript)
My school uses Java in it's classes a lot - and I see it as a major drawback that he had gone so far in programming, and didn't understand some of the fundamental building blocks like that.
> 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
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.
> Which means... who are you to have an opinion?
That is moronic...
Last edited by zacs7; 10-14-2008 at 03:56 PM.
Not all languages have "pass by reference". The compiler or interpreter may do so unbeknownst to the programmer in the interest of speed... if it is safe to do so.
One language I used did have it, but the syntactical difference was only in the function's header (prepend a '.' to argument names) - but there was NO syntactical requirement to use anything different within the code or the call. No equivalent of dereferencing or "address of". The compiler simply knew what to do.
