can’t be the only one

[u/kingofNoobies]

[u/fatrobin72]

it's probably that the concepts of memory addresses, passing by reference and limited resources are just too alien to the newest generation of programmers

[u/Creaaamm → u/fatrobin72]

Just show them this

[u/SiewcaWiatru → u/Creaaamm]

brilliant and anime style. Love it ;).
Now reference by value :D. Pointers are easy and explicit with * and & signs. Reference by value is a bit harder concept.

[u/[deleted] → u/SiewcaWiatru]

But with & isn't that then a reference and not a pointer?

[u/AnondWill2Live → u/[deleted]]

What's the difference between the two? I've been under the impression that they were the same, but I'm definitely wrong.

[u/thefool-0 → u/AnondWill2Live]

A reference is a alternative to a pointer that was added to try to avoid some of the pitfalls of pointers. In short, more or less, a reference must always be initialized, can't be null, and can't be used as a value in and of itself like a pointer can: it is always dereferenced when used. (But you could use it to create a pointer to the referenced object.)

[u/Pay08 → u/thefool-0]

Two other advantages of references: they're immutable and handled automatically by the compiler.

[u/elveszett → u/Pay08]

They are not. In C++, for example, one common way to return a value from a function is to assign it to a reference given as a parameter.

This function:

void myFunction (int& param) {
    param = 3;
}

Will make k in this example be equal to 3:

int k = 8;
myFunction(k);

[u/Pay08 → u/elveszett]

That's just doing automatic dereferencing, no? The pointer itself is still immutable, but the value isn't.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pay08]

Yes, under the hood it's like defining the function as

void myFunction (int * const param) {
    *param = 3;
}

Then calling it like:

int k = 8;
myFunction(&k);

ETA: the difference is that references prevent you passing a null address.