If that were the case, you wouldn’t just remember things a little wrong, you’d try and recall your name and instead be remembering a field trip you took in 3rd grade.
The other guy is right. Pass by value is a better analogue, and the act of recall actually performs a mutation.
If that were the case, you wouldn’t just remember things a little wrong, you’d try and recall your name and instead be remembering a field trip you took in 3rd grade.
You are implying that the process must be error-prone? I don’t see how that follows.
I am not implying, I am explicitly saying the process of memory recall is error-prone.
And further to the original commenters point, we already have enough understanding of the underlying physical mechanics of memory to be able to say that pass-by-value is a more appropriate analogue to how memory works than pass by reference.
If you fuzz the value of a value by 10%, your value is still within %10 of the original value. The same can not be said for pointers.
That isn’t an explanation of how we arrive at an understanding of how memory works. It’s just an easily understandable statement for a computer scientist to help “prime the pump” that there may be some low-hanging reasons why thinking of human memory in terms of pointers might not be a great analogue.
Ok, so given that memory is error prone, value makes more sense than reference, because errors of reference would be more errory.
That makes assumptions about how the referred-to stuff is arranged. It assumes no organization. That memories about lunch would be kept right next to the Chemistry lessons.
So, to step away from that assumption, maybe memory-components are more organized. Gradients of meaning, say.
And maybe memory-components are less chunky. Instead of a memory of lunch, it’s memory of sandwich, table and chewing, arranged appropriately in the referencing data.
If that were the case, you wouldn’t just remember things a little wrong, you’d try and recall your name and instead be remembering a field trip you took in 3rd grade.
The other guy is right. Pass by value is a better analogue, and the act of recall actually performs a mutation.
You are implying that the process must be error-prone? I don’t see how that follows.
I am not implying, I am explicitly saying the process of memory recall is error-prone.
And further to the original commenters point, we already have enough understanding of the underlying physical mechanics of memory to be able to say that pass-by-value is a more appropriate analogue to how memory works than pass by reference.
If you fuzz the value of a value by 10%, your value is still within %10 of the original value. The same can not be said for pointers.
That isn’t an explanation of how we arrive at an understanding of how memory works. It’s just an easily understandable statement for a computer scientist to help “prime the pump” that there may be some low-hanging reasons why thinking of human memory in terms of pointers might not be a great analogue.
Ok, so given that memory is error prone, value makes more sense than reference, because errors of reference would be more errory.
That makes assumptions about how the referred-to stuff is arranged. It assumes no organization. That memories about lunch would be kept right next to the Chemistry lessons.
So, to step away from that assumption, maybe memory-components are more organized. Gradients of meaning, say.
And maybe memory-components are less chunky. Instead of a memory of lunch, it’s memory of sandwich, table and chewing, arranged appropriately in the referencing data.