<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body><div style="font-family: sans-serif;"><div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;">
<p dir="auto">On 10 Aug 2022, at 12:34, Brian Goetz wrote:</p>
</div><div class="plaintext" style="white-space: normal;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777;"><p dir="auto">On 8/10/2022 3:17 PM, Dan Heidinga wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; border-left-color: #999999; color: #999999;"><p dir="auto">Which fits with the VAO model. Object references are clearly our giraffe leashes but that doesn't give us a good word for the flattened papery giraffe itself. The challenge here is we're not describing a property of the thing, we're describing the lack of something (the leash or reference). Add to this the VM doesn't provide guarantees about the storage for the non-reference case - it's all VM discretion on whether to flatten or not - so accurate terms feel like weasel words.</p>
<p dir="auto">Does the VAO model feel less forced if we're explicit about references being the difference?
<br>
- A value object can also be represented without an object reference, as primitives are today // (*)</p>
</blockquote><p dir="auto">This is actually the new weirdness --
<br>
that you have a choice about how to handle a value object. Previously we had two kinds of things: primitives (direct values) and object references (which can be null, or can have an object at the end of them, but you can't touch the object, only the reference.) Now we still have two kinds of values: value objects, and object references --
<br>
but object references can also refer to value objects! This is the weird part; that value objects have two separate placements / representations / interaction modes. We got away before without a notion of "bare object" because the only way you could touch a primitive is directly, and the only way you could touch an object is through a reference. But now some objects can be touched directly, *or* through a reference.</p>
<p dir="auto">C programmers would say "Duh, that's just X vs X*", but we want to blur the difference, so we don't distinguish between `x.a` and `x->a` as we do in C.</p>
<p dir="auto">Brainstorming on terms....we haven't tried "unboxed".</p>
<p dir="auto"> - A Point.ref is a reference to a Point object
<br>
- A Point.val is an unboxed Point object</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;">
<p dir="auto">The issue with many of these formulations (like “unboxed Point”) is that it makes it sound like the Point object has a funny decoration on it that makes it be unboxed. But what we want to say (I think) is that it is unburdened by any such decoration. That’s why I like a “just the facts” Point: “pure Point” or “bare Point” or “simple Point” or “unadorned Point”. Or maybe, suggesting the lack of an intermediary, “immediate Point” or “direct Point”.</p>
</div><div class="plaintext" style="white-space: normal;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777;"><p dir="auto">This fits into the "reference as default" model, but it suggests that Point.val are *not* objects, they are the "scooped out filling" of an object. So I guess this is more of a VANO term. Oh well.</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;">
<p dir="auto">Yeah; it seems to damage the integrity (simplicity, purity) of the Point to say, “oh that’s a spilled point”. (Spilled = unboxed.)</p>
</div><div class="plaintext" style="white-space: normal;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777;"><p dir="auto">Is there any mileage in splitting "reference" instead of object? Like, a "lightweight reference" (a short leash), which doesn't support polymorphism or null? Then a Point.val is a "lightweight reference" to a Point?</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;">
<p dir="auto">I think there is some mileage there for specifications, if not for teaching and learning. That’s why I suggested “value arrows” in my previous. Those are the same as your “short leash”.</p>
</div><div class="plaintext" style="white-space: normal;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 5px; padding-left: 5px; border-left: 2px solid #777777; color: #777777;"><p dir="auto">The VAO term we are looking for might be more like "grab the giraffe by the collar, rather than by the leash" :)</p>
</blockquote></div>
<div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;">
<p dir="auto">Yes, the two-heap model suggests we could pretend that all objects require leashes of some sort (chopsticks), but there are short ones and long ones with somewhat differing operational semantics (especially for <code style="margin: 0; padding: 0 0.4em; border-radius: 3px; background-color: #F7F7F7;">==</code>/<code style="margin: 0; padding: 0 0.4em; border-radius: 3px; background-color: #F7F7F7;">acmp</code>).</p>
<p dir="auto">And then, <em>as an optimization</em> but not in the specification, a short-leash giraffe can climb right up into your lap (if the VM lets it). You know you’ll like it, since you always preferred your ints and bytes close at hand.</p>
</div></div></body>
</html>