I think it's just a matter of terminology, really. In JS, if you think of passing an object to a function f as passing a reference by value to f, it is consistent with both your "counterexamples" (if I haven't overlooked anything) and what others claim (that JS just passes by value). You can change the outside object inside, but the formal parameter is not just substituted by the input variable.
The reason why people from the C++ community can be so adamant in this regard is exactly because passing by reference does not work there this way.
Sometimes lines are blurry and there are many examples of that. Take weakly/strongly typed language debate.
To sum up: you've brought up some good points but I wouldn't make such a fuss about it.
Hahaha, well... I tend to only "make a fuss" about things as a reaction to others continually making a fuss to me over a given issue. In this particular case, I was basically reacting to the fact that I've had multiple people try to shout me down on this over the last year. And their obstinance on this matter is, to me at least, rather baffling.
But I do agree with your points. I've finally come to realize that much of the Holy-War-ish fighting over this comes down to me standing on the north side of the mountain and insisting that it's "southerly", while others are standing on the south side of the mountain and insisting that it's "northerly". When I finally started analyzing all of their (adamant) arguments, I realized that much of this comes down to perspective. And... nomenclature.
The only reason why I care about this issue at all (other than it being good fodder for a few articles), is that, IMHO, the terminology, used by some of those who want to scream that JS only passes-by-value, is downright harmful to the understanding of new devs.
When you show someone two different variables, and setting those variables has completely different side effects, and then you get up on your soapbox about "JS only passes by value!!!" Well... it is, at best, extremely disorienting.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
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.
I think it's just a matter of terminology, really. In JS, if you think of passing an object to a function f as passing a reference by value to f, it is consistent with both your "counterexamples" (if I haven't overlooked anything) and what others claim (that JS just passes by value). You can change the outside object inside, but the formal parameter is not just substituted by the input variable.
The situation is supposed to be analogous in Java and well explained here: stackoverflow.com/questions/40480/..., although I'm no expert.
The reason why people from the C++ community can be so adamant in this regard is exactly because passing by reference does not work there this way.
Sometimes lines are blurry and there are many examples of that. Take weakly/strongly typed language debate.
To sum up: you've brought up some good points but I wouldn't make such a fuss about it.
Hahaha, well... I tend to only "make a fuss" about things as a reaction to others continually making a fuss to me over a given issue. In this particular case, I was basically reacting to the fact that I've had multiple people try to shout me down on this over the last year. And their obstinance on this matter is, to me at least, rather baffling.
But I do agree with your points. I've finally come to realize that much of the Holy-War-ish fighting over this comes down to me standing on the north side of the mountain and insisting that it's "southerly", while others are standing on the south side of the mountain and insisting that it's "northerly". When I finally started analyzing all of their (adamant) arguments, I realized that much of this comes down to perspective. And... nomenclature.
The only reason why I care about this issue at all (other than it being good fodder for a few articles), is that, IMHO, the terminology, used by some of those who want to scream that JS only passes-by-value, is downright harmful to the understanding of new devs.
When you show someone two different variables, and setting those variables has completely different side effects, and then you get up on your soapbox about "JS only passes by value!!!" Well... it is, at best, extremely disorienting.