4 ms·

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

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
Good day to you, too! You haven't disappointed in the latest of your daily diatribes! 'What in the world are you talking about?' Here we have another common rhetorical ploy, the attempt to insinuate that the other party is not making sense, without actually refuting her arguments. If not used carefully, however, it has the unfortunate side-effect of giving the impression that you alone cannot figure it out. But do keep the snide asides coming (not that I think you are likely to stop). If it were not for them, I would have left this thread long ago, satisfied that we had reached an amicable agreement to disagree. You follow with a few flat denials of things I wrote. You can do that until the cows come home, but unless you can offer actual refutations of the arguments I presented in support of those claims, you are just blowing hot air. '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.' Now we come to something that has the verisimilitude of a rational argument, and we can immediately see why you were reluctant to go there, despite the manifest failings of the alternatives you tried. The first question that comes to mind is, exponential in what? What, precisely, leads to an exponential growth in complexity? Note that the sentence quoted here claims exponentially more complication even if you stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, so make sure that your explanation covers that case, or I will have to return to it. Also make sure that your explanation somehow avoids applying to C++, and covers how we ever managed to figure this all out before we had C++. Furthermore, the implication that it has to be presented using one extant runtime or another is fallacious. One can discuss argument passing using stack frames and addresses without getting into how C++ or any other specific language implements it, and the empirical proof of that can be found in any number of elementary comp. sci. textbooks. Your 'its so simple' argument is a non-sequitur, as you are making the fallacy that if the concept is simple, then any explanation will be simple. In reality people can, and do, tie themselves in knots over simple issues - Zeno's paradoxes are a case in point. In fact, the simplicity argument goes against you - it's so simple, yet you ended up retroactively qualifying your use of pointer as 'abstract pointer' and spend time in drawing analogies between C++ pointers and Java references. And if its so simple, how come that there are people who are just not getting it? Maybe, just maybe, the problem is in how it is presented. The question of whether an approach via C++ is helpful, and whether your particular approach (using qualified analogies between C++ and Java) helps, are separate issues. I could go into how well your approach worked in practice, though I don't think that is necessary at this point (unless you choose to go there), except to point out that you repeatedly abandoned this approach in favor of a purely Java one, telling people to 'read the JLS.'
- jjnoakes 12y ago
  I didn't even bring up C++ - the article did, dlubarov commented about it, and you asserted that C++ references and Java references were the same. That's where I joined - to correct your fallacy. Perhaps it really is simple, and you are afraid to admit that maybe you didn't get a simple concept either, until your eyes were opened by the very posts you spend walls of text refuting. I know it is not a pleasant feeling, but it's acceptable to own up to it. No amount of text or thesaurus consultation will fix your mistake. Or, if that's too much pride for you to abandon, then you can continue to stand behind your original claim that references in C++ and Java are the same for this discussion (or any other - but I posit that there is no discussion, except for maybe "the word reference in both phrases has the same spelling"), then I feel for you. I really do. Good day!
  - mannykannot 12y ago
    You were correct on the references issue (which was not as you present it here, which is typical), but mistaken over the cause of length of this thread, which comes from an unbroken series of faulty arguments you presented in an attempt to support the notion that using C++ was the only option in explaining the issue. The last one was a risible claim about the literally exponential complexity of the alternatives. So here's a difference between us: I freely acknowledge correct arguments, while you silently slink away from your mistakes, and try to pretend you never made them. I am happy to have third parties figure out who is being immature here. Top O' the morning to you!
    - jjnoakes 12y ago
      Every one of my corrections was accurate. I also don't believe I ever claimed that C++ was the option. I own up to my mistakes the instant they are apparent. If you believe I should be owning up to something but I haven't yet, it is because either I wasn't wrong, or the argument against me wasn't coherent. But at least you finally capitulated. I didn't think you would, so you at least proved me wrong there.
      - 12y ago

mannykannot 12y ago

Good day to you, too! You haven't disappointed in the latest of your daily diatribes! 'What in the world are you talking about?' Here we have another common rhetorical ploy, the attempt to insinuate that the other party is not making sense, without actually refuting her arguments. If not used carefully, however, it has the unfortunate side-effect of giving the impression that you alone cannot figure it out. But do keep the snide asides coming (not that I think you are likely to stop). If it were not for them, I would have left this thread long ago, satisfied that we had reached an amicable agreement to disagree. You follow with a few flat denials of things I wrote. You can do that until the cows come home, but unless you can offer actual refutations of the arguments I presented in support of those claims, you are just blowing hot air. '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.' Now we come to something that has the verisimilitude of a rational argument, and we can immediately see why you were reluctant to go there, despite the manifest failings of the alternatives you tried. The first question that comes to mind is, exponential in what? What, precisely, leads to an exponential growth in complexity? Note that the sentence quoted here claims exponentially more complication even if you stick to one specific implementation of one specific language runtime, so make sure that your explanation covers that case, or I will have to return to it. Also make sure that your explanation somehow avoids applying to C++, and covers how we ever managed to figure this all out before we had C++. Furthermore, the implication that it has to be presented using one extant runtime or another is fallacious. One can discuss argument passing using stack frames and addresses without getting into how C++ or any other specific language implements it, and the empirical proof of that can be found in any number of elementary comp. sci. textbooks. Your 'its so simple' argument is a non-sequitur, as you are making the fallacy that if the concept is simple, then any explanation will be simple. In reality people can, and do, tie themselves in knots over simple issues - Zeno's paradoxes are a case in point. In fact, the simplicity argument goes against you - it's so simple, yet you ended up retroactively qualifying your use of pointer as 'abstract pointer' and spend time in drawing analogies between C++ pointers and Java references. And if its so simple, how come that there are people who are just not getting it? Maybe, just maybe, the problem is in how it is presented. The question of whether an approach via C++ is helpful, and whether your particular approach (using qualified analogies between C++ and Java) helps, are separate issues. I could go into how well your approach worked in practice, though I don't think that is necessary at this point (unless you choose to go there), except to point out that you repeatedly abandoned this approach in favor of a purely Java one, telling people to 'read the JLS.'

jjnoakes 12y ago
I didn't even bring up C++ - the article did, dlubarov commented about it, and you asserted that C++ references and Java references were the same. That's where I joined - to correct your fallacy. Perhaps it really is simple, and you are afraid to admit that maybe you didn't get a simple concept either, until your eyes were opened by the very posts you spend walls of text refuting. I know it is not a pleasant feeling, but it's acceptable to own up to it. No amount of text or thesaurus consultation will fix your mistake. Or, if that's too much pride for you to abandon, then you can continue to stand behind your original claim that references in C++ and Java are the same for this discussion (or any other - but I posit that there is no discussion, except for maybe "the word reference in both phrases has the same spelling"), then I feel for you. I really do. Good day!
- mannykannot 12y ago
  You were correct on the references issue (which was not as you present it here, which is typical), but mistaken over the cause of length of this thread, which comes from an unbroken series of faulty arguments you presented in an attempt to support the notion that using C++ was the only option in explaining the issue. The last one was a risible claim about the literally exponential complexity of the alternatives. So here's a difference between us: I freely acknowledge correct arguments, while you silently slink away from your mistakes, and try to pretend you never made them. I am happy to have third parties figure out who is being immature here. Top O' the morning to you!
  - jjnoakes 12y ago
    Every one of my corrections was accurate. I also don't believe I ever claimed that C++ was the option. I own up to my mistakes the instant they are apparent. If you believe I should be owning up to something but I haven't yet, it is because either I wasn't wrong, or the argument against me wasn't coherent. But at least you finally capitulated. I didn't think you would, so you at least proved me wrong there.
    - 12y ago