What is there to Hate about References?

I find most usage of references annoying cruft. Often the arguments I see or hear that are “pro-reference” make the same lame points that most of the internet makes:

  • Pointers are dangerous
  • Pointers are ambiguous and confusing
  • NULL pointers lead to undefined behavior and crashes

Just google “pointers and references” and you’ll see bad advice everywhere. A new programmer seeing these bullet points is likely to get hyped about using references everywhere. Seeing advice like this just sort of upsets some part of me. Perhaps it’s because when the above statements are plastered onto websites they state them as fact.

In an effort to not make the same annoying mistake as every other article on the internet I’ll present my opinion as an opinion. By stating something as an opinion the reader will immediately begin to read with a certain amount of skepticism. This might coax newer readers into thinking for themselves, which ought to be the goal of writing an educational article on the first place. Writing step-by-step instructions on how not to use “dangerous pointers” is the worst way to write on the topic of pointers and references.

I know I sound pretty bitter. I recall a time when I browsed the internet and looked for advice on this exact topic. It takes time to unlearn bad things, and so this post was born.

Memory Matters

Where things are in memory is a big deal. Memory access is commonly a bottleneck in real-time applications, and code that has ambiguous memory accesses patterns upsets me. Imagine peering into a large function that is operating on some kind of data. Scanning the middle of the function a few lines of code are encountered:

Just be reading this code it isn’t immediately understandable as what the variable d is. What is happening here? In order to know what the scope of d is some scrolling or manual code navigation will ensue. How long will this take? How much does it cut down on focus while the reader is just trying to understand the code?

Often times for member variables of an internal class or struct will be appended with the m_ prefix. This is nice as readers immediately know the scope and implications of all uses of a member variable. There’s an implicit this pointer being accessed somehow, and the variable’s scope is relative to this class’s definition.

In this case there’s no such nice prefix. d can either be a reference or value type. There’s no way to know without some kind of intellisense. Mousing over a variable to see what the type is, given a nice IDE, is not really that big of a deal. The big deal here is that if you have to mouse over something to get an idea of what sort of memory this represents. Just take a look at this code:

What sort of questions might the user have about this code? Clearly d is a pointer to some memory. This immediately informs the reader about the nature of the code. is likely to be some kind of output, or perhaps a specific element in an array. It is definitely not just a lone variable on the stack. No intellisense is needed to get this information, no mousing over or code navigation is needed just to understand the idea of assigning a value to some non-local stack memory. The programmer reading this code might be able to focus slightly better on understanding the code due to the use of a pointer.

Sure d could technically be a *NULL* pointer (gasp), but in reality this is a non-issue. The only times checking for NULL pointers is important is when user-input is being handled. A lot of code doesn’t deal with user input! For internal code I’d make the argument that memory not on the local stack scope (local to at least the function currently executing” should almost always be referred to by pointer. Internal code can make assumptions on how pointers are used and not care about the NULL case. Internal code often solves difficult problems, and needs to be efficient (in the scope of real-time applications). Anything that fragments reader focus is bad, even taking a moment to mouse of a variable to see if it’s a reference or not.

Another Example

In the above snippet imagine that the joined AABB is being written to, by finding the AABB that bounds both a and b. Perhaps in this specific case it is fairly obvious that joined is memory that is being written to by the MergeAABBs function. This is probably because joined was quite well named, despite being passed by reference to MergeAABBs. However this function might have been written in a way that returns a new AABB entirely by value, and only operates on a local stack copy of joined. In this case the code would compile and run perfectly fine, but joined would have unitialized memory. This might lead to a crash or assert, thus lower iteration time and programmer focus.

Now lets look at the use of a “dangerous” pointer:

In this code snippet, no matter what the third parameter is named as, it is as obvious as possible that the function MergeAABBs is operating on some memory passed to it, and does not return anything useful in this particular use-case. The contents of the function MergeAABBs is probably obvious as well, I know I can imagine how it’s implemented without even looking; there’s just no ambiguity.

The name of variables should be meaningful to the problem the code is solving. Requiring a naming convention for code clarity simply because of an arbitrary reference function parameter is an unnecessary constraint! Naming things is hard enough without random convention limitations.

Sure if some idiot passed in a NULL pointer to MergeAABBs it will crash, but how often does this happen in practice? What kind of programmers are you hiring that actually get caught up in this kind of problem? Real-life competent engineers aren’t going pass in a NULL pointer and will appreciate good code written with “dangerous and ambiguous” pointers.

When a function takes only floats and writes to a float it’s pretty much worst-case for reference ambiguity. Which float is being written to in the next code snippet?

Is the triangle actually {a, b, c}, or some other combination of parameters? Which of the arguments are float arrays (vectors) or just floats? Which ones are written to, and which are read only? Some kind of code navigation is needed to know for sure. By convention uvw might represent the name of barycentric coordinates for a triangle, but perhaps this specific piece of code was solving a particular problem where the derivation named them something else? It’s just ambiguous without a pre-defined naming convention, of which is imposed in the middle of non-related algorithms.

Here’s the pointer version; note how non-ambiguous this code is:

Useful References

I currently know of a single use of references that I really like, and that’s a const reference passed to a function as an argument, and sometimes the returning of a const reference.

Passing a const reference to a function means that this is a read-only value, and is definitely not pointing to an array. It is also a pretty common convention for operator overloading. The only downside is that the dot access operator may be mistaken as a value-type access, instead of a pointer access.

Returning a const reference might make sense sometimes, but usually I’m of the opinion that a pointer is better. Returning a pointer just abides by all my previous points about memory access. If the user retrieves a const pointer from a function, the explicit -> access makes it very clear that this memory came from somewhere else!

References are also able to capture temporary rvalues. This can make the life-time of such temporary values more explicit.

Sometimes a million dereferences is just too many. In some cases the lack of the dereference operator is nice and adds to code readability. However, in this case references are just an aid and live only on the stack. The pointer is what is actually kept and stored, in order to keep the code clean and up-front. Here’s an example:

An equivalent, but more verbose and annoying version can be constructed with pointers:

“Advanced C++” and Generic Programming

“Advanced C++” features (in quotations for sarcasm, like much of the rest of the article) are useful sometimes, there’s no doubt about. Templates, classes, and all the weirdness therein is sometimes necessary. The amount of code duplication and boilerplate that these features can be remove makes them important.

However, a lot of code is type-static and very specific. Code often solves very particular, specific problems. A lot of newer students (me) and colleagues get all caught up in the features and just end up wasting their time. When I say waste time, I mean they were actually trying to finish a project, instead of just learn about C++ and the uses thereof.

One might view C++ from the perspective that all the “advanced features” just can egg-on a programmer into over engineering their code into a weird mess of indirection and verbose templated code. Crazy inlined callbacks, type agnostic code, verbose namespaces and whatnot. Many times it’s just useless cruft, and a specific implementation for a single problem will be simpler, easier to read, and smaller in code size.

All of this ranting comes down the the point of: references let code operate in a slightly more agonistic manner, which is great for templates. The dot operator does it all! This makes sense for code that needs templating, but often doesn’t make sense for a lot of code (which was what the previous portions of the article pointed out!).

However, good generic code is so incredibly difficult to design and come up with that hardly anybody should be doing it. Good code that is used by multiple people is at least an order of magnitude harder to write than good code that has a single specific use case. Templates, references, classes, these things might make it tempting to try out all the features to make a “generic program” that “can be re-used in the future”. I’ll tell it how it is: simple code that is type static, specialized for the specific problem it is solving, and doesn’t use advanced features is probably an order of magnitude more reusable (and performant) than “generic” code, simply because it’s easier to write.

Form an Opinion

As a reader, think for yourself and make your own judgment calls based on your own experience. This means that a good way to take advantage of the knowledge of an experienced programmer is to try out their advice with an almost skeptical attitude. Just don’t look for step-by-step instructions on how to be a computer scientist. Nobody wants to work with a mindless programmer that writes bad code, because then the good programmers will be busy cleaning it up.

 

TwitterRedditFacebookShare

3 thoughts on “What is there to Hate about References?

  1. john

    It’s been a dilemmatic paradigm concept that every programmer should or even must be deal with in order to become a better and knowing what ar they gonna do?, for what?, and why ?

    There is not just only knowing most of the feature and how it work, but also when to use it properly and cleanly to make the code optimal in every perspective, no maximal.
    Because maximal is close enough to explode. . .

    Overall. . . Nice explanation, keep it up!

    Reply
  2. ThePhD

    I would think that rather than either the pointer or the reference out-parameter syntax, I would just return a triple of the things I needed:

    vec3 uvw = barycentric( p, triangle );

    Is that not a valid way to do things? Last I checked, any braindead optimizer written in the last decade can construct the u, v and w in-place.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *