By the Transitive Law of Logic and Mathematics, it then follows that references and values are one and the same
Unless I'm missing something here this is absolutely untrue and I'm not sure what it is you were trying to say. Referencing isn't transitive in the first place and even if it were, if you want equivalence you also need reflexivity and symmetry.
I think the memory graph is confusing, went should point to 'to', not to dev. Admittedly there's little difference with const values.
Other than that good writeup, many beginners struggle with this when exposed to mutability.
Yes, I'm aware that went should point to 'to'. I only made it point dev for simplicity's sake, really. I hope it's still understandable nonetheless.
And regarding the Transitive Law, I was just trying to say that believing "references are values because variables are references to a value" should be avoided. Sorry if that didn't come out right.
Anyway, thanks for pointing (See what I did there?) this out.
I would then argue in favor of rewording that sentence. The reason being that it might confuse people about what transitivity is (i.e. a property of a specific relation).
It is, though I must admit I personally detested the subject as I have very different views about what language is. But that's going way too far for a value/reference discussion :P
Anyway, all jokes aside, I appreciate how you brought up the limitations and flaws of my article. Hopefully future readers will note your points. Thanks!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Unless I'm missing something here this is absolutely untrue and I'm not sure what it is you were trying to say. Referencing isn't transitive in the first place and even if it were, if you want equivalence you also need reflexivity and symmetry.
I think the memory graph is confusing,
wentshould point to'to', not todev. Admittedly there's little difference withconstvalues.Other than that good writeup, many beginners struggle with this when exposed to mutability.
Yes, I'm aware that
wentshould point to'to'. I only made it pointdevfor simplicity's sake, really. I hope it's still understandable nonetheless.And regarding the Transitive Law, I was just trying to say that believing "references are values because variables are references to a value" should be avoided. Sorry if that didn't come out right.
Anyway, thanks for pointing (See what I did there?) this out.
I would then argue in favor of rewording that sentence. The reason being that it might confuse people about what transitivity is (i.e. a property of a specific relation).
A reference to Frege's "Über Sinn und Bedeutung" might be a better fit.
nice one
Oh, wow. This is some deep philosophical stuff.
It is, though I must admit I personally detested the subject as I have very different views about what language is. But that's going way too far for a value/reference discussion :P
Anyway, all jokes aside, I appreciate how you brought up the limitations and flaws of my article. Hopefully future readers will note your points. Thanks!