Actually thinking passes values.
Speaking passes references.
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2024
36 points (100.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
33333 readers
457 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
To private variables. :(
:fingerguns: this person gets it
Doesn't recall actually use the values and re-writes them to the brain? I seem to recall that being why we can have new associations and why memories can be slightly altered or degrade every recall.
Though I'm no brain guy.
I figure that which is written and rewritten is addresses. To memories and some kind of ambient idea-objects.
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.
*though
Clear as mud
just like pointers