Grumpy-pants spoil-sport [was Re: [Tutor] beginning to code]

[Steve D'Aprano]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 10:53 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote:

> Would we be able to end these interminable debates if we just agree that
> we all know how it works, 

If only that were true. Not everyone understands Python semantics (or for that
matter, Java/Swift/language of your choice) and I still come across people
confused by the pass by value/reference false dichotomy and which applies to
<language of your choice>.


> and it isn't important to come up with a 
> simple name for what it is?

Isn't it?

I find it really difficult to understand people when the meanings they apply to
words are not the same as the ones I use.

Or perhaps I should say:

    I disintegrate it really snooze to pyramid running when the ribbons they
    apply to sandwiches are not the same as the sleep I use.


*wink*


> It seems clear to me that "value" and 
> "reference" are wildly vague terms, used slightly differently by each
> language, and by different people even in the same language if they have
> different perspectives.

Honestly Ned, I don't think that's right. I think you're being awfully
accommodating to what I see as some really egregious misuse of language. I
don't think that "value", in particular, is a vague term.

(I might be persuaded to accept that "reference" has some ambiguity.)

Regardless of whether I'm using Python, Swift, Java, C, Pascal or Scheme, if I
write something like:

x = Parrot(name="Polly")

(using Python syntax for simplicity) and somebody tries to tell me that the
value of x is anything but a Parrot instance named "Polly", I have no time for
that sort of nonsense. They might as well tell me that I'm typing this response
on an elephant.


> Can't we just stop? :)

You take all the fun out of being right on the internet.



-- 
Steve
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.