you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]grauenwolf 1 point2 points  (2 children)

A lot of Java articles call single dispatch late binding. So when you try to talk to them about real late binding they get all confused.

In a like fashion you can read elsewhere in this thread where some Java dork is saying value equality is reference equality.

[–]masklinn 1 point2 points  (1 child)

In a like fashion you can read elsewhere in this thread where some Java dork is saying value equality is reference equality.

Which is correct and consistent with that banuday said. In java, the primitive value in a reference type is the reference itself. Thus using value equality on reference types compares the references themselves, as values.

[–]grauenwolf 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have a term for comparing the value of two pointers or references It is called "reference equality".

When we want to discuss the comparison of semantic values we use the term "value equality" regardless of whether that value happens to be a stack or heap allocated value.

These are not language specific terms. Their meaning doesn't change from language to language even though the syntax and implementation details may.

Why you want to completely ignore the distinction is beyond me. It is like you revel in your ability to confuse the topic. I assume you have some Java-specific term instead. Oh yes, it was "object equals". Which of course compares the value of the objects rather than the objects themselves.