8 ms·

Clearly reading the JLS wasn't good enough for most people. So what do you turn to when people take a well-established programming term like "pass-by-reference"

Clearly reading the JLS wasn't good enough for most people. So what do you turn to when people take a well-established programming term like "pass-by-reference" and apply it where it doesn't belong? Seems to me like a good place is a modern, widely-used language which is similar to Java but also has both pass-by-value and pass-by-reference so one can illustrate what those terms actually mean and how they differ. Seems like C++ is as good a choice as any Feel free to use another language if you can do better. Explaining pass-by-reference using Java, which can't express pass-by-reference, is one of the sources of the confusion people here are experiencing (the other is Java using reference to mean something different from established meanings).

mannykannot 12y ago
"Clearly reading the JLS wasn't good enough for most people. So what do you turn to when people take a well-established programming term like "pass-by-reference" and apply it where it doesn't belong?" Clearly, one should turn to computer science fundamentals. Considering the totality of your posts under this article and the responses to them, picking the language with arguably the most complex panoply of ways to denote values, of any language in common use, hasn't worked out as a pedagogical device.
- jjnoakes 12y ago
  Clearly, others in this thread need something more accessible than computer science fundamentals. I believe, if that were enough, they would have understood the terms correctly from the start (because the terms are rooted in computer science fundamentals - the confusion only arises once you confuse them with Java terminology). So do not conflate what you consider clear with what the thread is reflecting as clear. They are quite different.
  - mannykannot 12y ago
    What the threads reflect is that you have repeatedly abandoned this approach: 'Please learn Java. It's not about not knowing other languages. It's about not knowing Java. This is all in the JLS.' 'Read the JLS. This is Java as defined by its creators, absent of C++.' I think you are being particularly clear in that last one.
    - jjnoakes 12y ago
      I think you are being naive if you think people who don't understand the definitions of "pass-by-value" and "pass-by-reference" (terms well-defined and well-understood in programming language theory and computer science fundamentals), and then go on to further misunderstand an article about Java and C++, will get any benefit from discussion on the topic that avoids Java, C++, or any other concrete examples, and instead tries to use the very definitions themselves (which are not understood, remember?) to try to provide clarity. As I said before, if people understood the fundamentals, or if the fundamentals were good enough, then this entire thread wouldn't exist. This stuff is child's play. Anyone who is confused by this needs more help than shrugging and saying "stop trying, just point them at more fundamentals"...
      - mannykannot 12y ago
        You appear to have put this post in the wrong place, as it says nothing that relates to the observation presented in the parent, which is that elsewhere, you ultimately abandoned your C++-analogy approach in favor of one that discusses Java in Java terms -e.g. 'Read the JLS. This is Java as defined by its creators, absent of C++.' Which is not to say that there is anywhere this post belongs, as you attempt to use a couple of tired old rhetorical ploys: insinuating a position that has not been stated, and the insertion of a specific item into a list of disjunctions in the hope of insinuating that it is necessary. Your argument here depends on the misunderstanding that all explanations in computer science are abstract, and specifically that they are inevitably more abstract than a discussion of the same topic in C++. That is not so; a discussion of argument-passing can be (and is) done in terms of addresses and stack frames. That's more concrete than 'abstract pointers', and also more straightforward than making qualified analogies between elements of Java and C++, which are of no help to anyone who doesn't have a solid understanding of C++, anyway. This is just as well, or how else would anyone have understood this stuff before they had C++?
        jjnoakes 12y ago
        What in the world are you talking about? > you attempt to use a couple of tired old rhetorical ploys I do no such thing. > Your argument here depends on the misunderstanding that all explanations in computer science are abstract Not at all. > That is not so; a discussion of argument-passing can be (and is) done in terms of addresses and stack frames. Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all. Neither is ideal. > are of no help to anyone who doesn't have a solid understanding of C++, anyway You just need a basic understanding. This isn't advanced stuff here. People learn Java's object references the very first time they Thing x = y; y->something(); // Why has x changed? and they learn C++ references and pointers ... well from the start. These are week-one concepts for anyone learning the languages. > This is just as well, or how else would anyone have understood this stuff before they had C++? Most people have no trouble understanding the concept in week one of Java, or C++, or whatever other language they are learning. And the rest get it from the fundamentals. But those aren't the people in this thread who continue to confuse the issue. If someone can't take the phrase "pass-by-reference" and the phrase "Java object reference" and understand that the two uses of the word "reference" mean different things, even after reading the simple-to-understand definitions of each, then they really need above-and-beyond help. This isn't "dive into CS theory" or "show them the machine-level stack frames and register contents", this is "try whatever you can that might help them". C++ is a very valid place to go for these folks.

mannykannot 12y ago

"Clearly reading the JLS wasn't good enough for most people. So what do you turn to when people take a well-established programming term like "pass-by-reference" and apply it where it doesn't belong?" Clearly, one should turn to computer science fundamentals. Considering the totality of your posts under this article and the responses to them, picking the language with arguably the most complex panoply of ways to denote values, of any language in common use, hasn't worked out as a pedagogical device.

jjnoakes 12y ago
Clearly, others in this thread need something more accessible than computer science fundamentals. I believe, if that were enough, they would have understood the terms correctly from the start (because the terms are rooted in computer science fundamentals - the confusion only arises once you confuse them with Java terminology). So do not conflate what you consider clear with what the thread is reflecting as clear. They are quite different.
- mannykannot 12y ago
  What the threads reflect is that you have repeatedly abandoned this approach: 'Please learn Java. It's not about not knowing other languages. It's about not knowing Java. This is all in the JLS.' 'Read the JLS. This is Java as defined by its creators, absent of C++.' I think you are being particularly clear in that last one.
  - jjnoakes 12y ago
    I think you are being naive if you think people who don't understand the definitions of "pass-by-value" and "pass-by-reference" (terms well-defined and well-understood in programming language theory and computer science fundamentals), and then go on to further misunderstand an article about Java and C++, will get any benefit from discussion on the topic that avoids Java, C++, or any other concrete examples, and instead tries to use the very definitions themselves (which are not understood, remember?) to try to provide clarity. As I said before, if people understood the fundamentals, or if the fundamentals were good enough, then this entire thread wouldn't exist. This stuff is child's play. Anyone who is confused by this needs more help than shrugging and saying "stop trying, just point them at more fundamentals"...
    - mannykannot 12y ago
      You appear to have put this post in the wrong place, as it says nothing that relates to the observation presented in the parent, which is that elsewhere, you ultimately abandoned your C++-analogy approach in favor of one that discusses Java in Java terms -e.g. 'Read the JLS. This is Java as defined by its creators, absent of C++.' Which is not to say that there is anywhere this post belongs, as you attempt to use a couple of tired old rhetorical ploys: insinuating a position that has not been stated, and the insertion of a specific item into a list of disjunctions in the hope of insinuating that it is necessary. Your argument here depends on the misunderstanding that all explanations in computer science are abstract, and specifically that they are inevitably more abstract than a discussion of the same topic in C++. That is not so; a discussion of argument-passing can be (and is) done in terms of addresses and stack frames. That's more concrete than 'abstract pointers', and also more straightforward than making qualified analogies between elements of Java and C++, which are of no help to anyone who doesn't have a solid understanding of C++, anyway. This is just as well, or how else would anyone have understood this stuff before they had C++?
      - jjnoakes 12y ago
        What in the world are you talking about? > you attempt to use a couple of tired old rhetorical ploys I do no such thing. > Your argument here depends on the misunderstanding that all explanations in computer science are abstract Not at all. > That is not so; a discussion of argument-passing can be (and is) done in terms of addresses and stack frames. Sure you could do it that way. But it becomes exponentially more complicated because you need to either stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, or you have to deal with explaining them all. Neither is ideal. > are of no help to anyone who doesn't have a solid understanding of C++, anyway You just need a basic understanding. This isn't advanced stuff here. People learn Java's object references the very first time they Thing x = y; y->something(); // Why has x changed? and they learn C++ references and pointers ... well from the start. These are week-one concepts for anyone learning the languages. > This is just as well, or how else would anyone have understood this stuff before they had C++? Most people have no trouble understanding the concept in week one of Java, or C++, or whatever other language they are learning. And the rest get it from the fundamentals. But those aren't the people in this thread who continue to confuse the issue. If someone can't take the phrase "pass-by-reference" and the phrase "Java object reference" and understand that the two uses of the word "reference" mean different things, even after reading the simple-to-understand definitions of each, then they really need above-and-beyond help. This isn't "dive into CS theory" or "show them the machine-level stack frames and register contents", this is "try whatever you can that might help them". C++ is a very valid place to go for these folks.