Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!seal.cis.ohio-state.edu!ogden
From: ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: Reference Semantics
Message-ID: <133644@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 12 Jun 91 20:01:24 GMT
References: <1181@tetrauk.UUCP> <133154@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <1991Jun12.072557.7282@jyu.fi>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Computer and Information Science
Lines: 20

In article <1991Jun12.072557.7282@jyu.fi> sakkinen@jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) writes:

  ...
>Analogies and parables are often useful, but often also dangerous:
>keep in mind that they can only suggest something, never prove it.
>I think that the need to share some objects is much more fundamental
>for object modelling than is the need to jump for imperative programming.
>The (visible) use of references should be restricted to a minimum,
>but accepted without remorse whenever it is necessary.

It's true that analogies only suggest, but don't prove. In this case,
the analogy suggests strongly that we examine very carefully whether
the visible use of references is really that central to object oriented 
design. A good example or two showing where references are fundamentally
necessary could perhaps expose the deficiencies of the proposed [dangerous?]
analogy.

--

/Bill