Re: technology discussion → does the world need a "new" C ?

Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:

On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:12:53 +0200
Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

But maybe he has looked up some things, since lately he's squirming
by introducing terms like "_true_ pass-by-reference" [emphasis by me]
obviously trying to bend the semantics of the established technical
"pass-by-reference" term to fit his argument.  (Introducing new terms
for existing mechanisms or bending semantics of existing terms with
well established meaning is certainly not helpful in any way.)
>
But, yes, that person is a phenomenon.

>
I don't share your optimistic belief that the term "pass by reference"
is really established.  Very few terms in computer science (science?
really?) are established firmly.  Except, may be, in more theoretical
branches of it.

The terms

   call by name
   call by value
   call by reference
   call by value-result

are all well-defined and firmly established, going back more than
60 years.  I learned all of these in standard early course in
computer science sometime in the early 1970s.  Of course I can't
be sure about the source after all these years, but I expect
they were defined in the textbook we were using in the class.

Much later, probably under the influence of people learning
by reading blogs rather than books, some of these terms were
expressed as, eg, "pass by value" or "pass by reference".
However there is no indication that the change was meant to
express a different meaning, except insofar as the person(s)
using the revised terms were confused.

Anyone who refuses to stick to the firmly established meanings
is in all likelihood just someone who enjoys being fractious.