i.e. we care about the object, not the references. This is important too:
Yes! This is super cool. Basically from my research I found out that Python, unlike Ruby and JavaScript, doesn't create a new "ref object" in the higher level language but actually directly assigns the reference, like C would.
Anyway, I agree with you that the OO languages are not CbR w/r/t objects (though I think they can be in spirit), and IMO you did a good job of explaining the history and the nuance.
❤❤ I also think you provide very valuable extra information!
I'm not very articulate at the moment but here is a meh response by me 😅 on the Python thang.
Python isn't really an exception, but yes, I understand what you're saying. Looking through the python source code, it seems again that it is mostly what we are trying to say when no reference is copied. The re-assignment in python is actually copying a reference, but indeed, no new memory need be allocated, for that reference -- sorta, because the identifier (name) still needs to live... inside the memory.
So even though Python doesn't "copy" the reference like JavaScript does (create a new JSVal that points to the same object), it does so on a waaaay lower level (point directly to the original same object).
Ugh. It's giving me a slight headache 😅😅😅.
However, there are actually quite a few (mostly older) languages that don't copy at all, which would be those languages that are not call by value/sharing/object :).
The most interesting to me are copy-restore languages or those theoretical ones that only copy on write... a topic for another time.
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.
Yes! This is super cool. Basically from my research I found out that Python, unlike Ruby and JavaScript, doesn't create a new "ref object" in the higher level language but actually directly assigns the reference, like C would.
❤❤ I also think you provide very valuable extra information!
I'm not very articulate at the moment but here is a meh response by me 😅 on the Python thang.
Valentin made a good comment and jmc went into more detail.
Valentin Baca
jmc
Python isn't really an exception, but yes, I understand what you're saying. Looking through the python source code, it seems again that it is mostly what we are trying to say when no reference is copied. The re-assignment in python is actually copying a reference, but indeed, no new memory need be allocated, for that reference -- sorta, because the identifier (name) still needs to live... inside the memory.
So even though Python doesn't "copy" the reference like JavaScript does (create a new JSVal that points to the same object), it does so on a waaaay lower level (point directly to the original same object).
Ugh. It's giving me a slight headache 😅😅😅.
However, there are actually quite a few (mostly older) languages that don't copy at all, which would be those languages that are not call by value/sharing/object :).
The most interesting to me are copy-restore languages or those theoretical ones that only copy on write... a topic for another time.