3 ms·

> Sorry, but having an 'opinion' about such definitions doesn't help. Just [use the definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy#cite_note-1 htt

by Veedrac 12y ago

> Sorry, but having an 'opinion' about such definitions doesn't help. Just [use the definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy#cite_note-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy#cite_note-1). This clearly states what the article tried to explain with helpful examples. I don't think that's a very strong argument. For one, it's not really useful to be totally prescriptivist, especially when talking about just-birthed fields like computing. Also, consider the usage on that page of "data structure" where it's implied that you can't have a stack-allocated data structure (namely that data structures aren't value types, even those containing pointers). Such a distinction seems remarkably unusual to me, indicating that it's best not to take that page as gospel. Personally I prefer to avoid these terms altogether because on the rare case that it would be useful to use the words, it's rarely worth the inevitable argument.

m_mueller 12y ago
I didn't mean to use that wiki as gospel, but the book citation I linked seems to hold up. And for a concept like pass-by-value vs. pass-by-reference, I don't think it's a good idea to go and come up with your own definitions if you don't have a very good reason to do so. While I agree that computing is a still a young field, and lots of stones are still rolling, it's still important to establish some common language and models just in order to communicate ideas. This includes not overloading terms that have been clearly established by now. If you find a well-known source[1] that would disagree with the terminology as cited, I'd be happy to revise my opinion. [1] such as Kay, Ritchie, Dijkstra, Engelbart or even Matsumoto, Van Rossum, Eich, Crockford.
- Veedrac 12y ago
  > terms that have been clearly established by now Evidently this is not one of those, though, since its colloquial use is all over the map.

by Veedrac 12y ago

m_mueller 12y ago

I didn't mean to use that wiki as gospel, but the book citation I linked seems to hold up. And for a concept like pass-by-value vs. pass-by-reference, I don't think it's a good idea to go and come up with your own definitions if you don't have a very good reason to do so. While I agree that computing is a still a young field, and lots of stones are still rolling, it's still important to establish some common language and models just in order to communicate ideas. This includes not overloading terms that have been clearly established by now. If you find a well-known source[1] that would disagree with the terminology as cited, I'd be happy to revise my opinion. [1] such as Kay, Ritchie, Dijkstra, Engelbart or even Matsumoto, Van Rossum, Eich, Crockford.

Veedrac 12y ago
> terms that have been clearly established by now Evidently this is not one of those, though, since its colloquial use is all over the map.