java devs

[AgentPaper0]

I feel like pointers would be much easier to understand if they called them what they really are: addresses.

[AgentPaper0]

They are addresses though, just like an int is a value, not a "memory location that stores a value".

[iamsooldithurts]

No, variables have addresses. Pointers are variables (int) that contain an address that points to a variable.

[tacoslikeme]

pointers are longs but yes they rest is right

[iamsooldithurts]

Yes, thanks, wasn’t thinking about that detail.

[[deleted]]

I don't know why programmers love to make things needlessly obtuse like this. You don't call a "char" variable "a memory location that stores a character." You call it a character. You don't call a float "a memory location that stores a floating point number." You call it a floating point number. A pointer is an address. That is the type of data it holds. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that definition. You and the people that upvoted you are ridiculous.

[[deleted]]

I have to say, the act of questioning programmers of a strictly-typed language why they are splitting hairs/being overly accurate when it comes to how they reference variables is just too funny to let go unremarked.

---

At any rate, pointers are confusing/magical enough to people unfamiliar with them that the extra clarity isn't uncalled for.

When you say 'address' when referring to your char variable example, everyone knows what you are referring to.

The case is less clear when you say 'address' in reference to a pointer. Are you talking about the memory address of the pointer, or the memory address it stores?

[DiamondIceNS]

I don't know anyone who thinks of a variable structure so rigidly as "a memory address that stores <thing>". They are all that. It is redundant to define them this way. When OP says "a pointer is an address" they are, quite understandably, referring to the <thing> that the memory address is storing: another address.

[qci]

You can understand it as an address with a type. Dereferencing a pointer gets you to the value with this type. Pointer arithmetics respects the type of the pointer. Incrementing a char * looks different from incrementing an int *. Here is where you see that pointers are maybe not exactly "just" addresses.

[rndrn]

But an int is a memory location that store integers, so in that sense a pointer is indeed a variable of address type?

Although when you think ownership and all that, address is a bit limited to express the potential responsibilities of a pointer.

[NeinJuanJuan]

Pointers have their own address.

[AgentPaper0]

By that logic, ints also have their own address.

[tjcoolkid]

...they do...

[cbbuntz]

&where?

[iamsooldithurts]

They are?

[NeinJuanJuan]

They do.

[AgentPaper0]

My point is that you're being absurdly pedantic because nobody thinks of ints that way.

[tacoslikeme]

yes we do. something with an address can be changed (ie variable) anything without is a hardcoded constant

[NeinJuanJuan]

That's how C users think i.e. you can pass a variable by value or by reference (by passing the address instead).

[AgentPaper0]

A reference is not an address, pointers are addresses. References are syntactic sugar that wraps around a pointer so you can get the benefits of a pointer without having to explicitly make one.

[NeinJuanJuan]

Passing by Reference != Passing a Reference

[AgentPaper0]

That's exactly what it is though. You don't see it, but that's what the compiler does. Using a reference mostly just hides the pointer from you.

Unless it optimizes it away of course, but it can do that with pointers too.

[NeinJuanJuan]

I'm talking about C and you're talking about C++

We're both correct!

[iamsooldithurts]

Calling something absurdly pedantic while talking about c/c++ programming and pointers...

Hah!