> Perhaps a problem here is that a lot of these terms
> (e.g. pass-by-reference) were defined long before object-oriented
> programming was common. The idea of a variable having methods that
> can change it wasn't common. The changes in technologoy have made the
> terms obsolete, or inadequate. But unfortunately, we can't really go
> around changing the meaning of the terms.
>
Hi Milt,
I quite agree, pass-by-reference and pass-by-value have no place in Java per
se.
The process by which you actually refer to an object is transparent to the
programmer.
No matter where you are in your code you are working with a handle to the
object (not a reference,
a reference is a pointer) for Objects or the actual value for primitives.
The transparency in Java is obtained by hiding all the nasty pointers from
you, the lucky programmer.
It is needed because of security issues and because fiddling with pointers
directly would mean you
having to forget garbage control and also having all the other problems
associated with languages that
give you direct control over memory allocation and management.
It suffices to say Object when we mean handle to object (or reference)
because there is no other way of actually
referring to an object. Forget the pass-by-whatever, anyone who doesn't know
these things can learn them
Andy Bailey
___________________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff SERVLET-INTEREST".
Archives: http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/servlet-interest.html
Resources: http://java.sun.com/products/servlet/external-resources.html
LISTSERV Help: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/user/user.html
