I think the main point to take away is that it doesn't really make sense to argue about nomenclature outside of a specific context, because every language defines them differently. Saying that Java references aren't really references is just silly because well, that's how Java defines references. In fact it seems the
general CS term 'reference' actually contains pointers and C++ references as specific examples.
(1) Yes pointer and reference are both synonymous in CS, and context is relevant, which is what I wrote above; but (2) Java intentionally invoked the C++ context in their marketing of Java, which explicitly said "Java has references, not pointers" (remember, this was market sp3ak aimed at executives and decision makers rather than technicians, and often aimed at VB farms that wanted power but for some reason ph34red C or C++ [yes, businesses like that exists, I have even worked at such])l and (3) since we still have to confront the memes started by that FUD it IS relevant to talk about the Java "pointers or references" topic, even as from within a C++ nomenclature. We just need to remember SciFi-nerd sayings meanwhile, like Bab5's "truth is a triple-edged sword" (side A's version, B's, and reality). Silly, yes, but not as you imply, but rather in that we have to deal with silly marketing stunts and their legacy within programming and in programming languages.
That, and that is is a reasonably stimulating debate. Few debates a boring topic.
Developer
