From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!apple!oliveb!mipos3!omepd!inteloc!vladimir
From: vladimir@inteloc.intel.com (Vladimir G. Ivanovic)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Handling objects in a distributed system
Message-ID: <4854@omepd.UUCP>
Date: 25 Aug 89 19:13:26 GMT
Sender: news@omepd.UUCP
Reply-To: vladimir@inteloc.UUCP (Vladimir G. Ivanovic)
Organization: BiiN, Hillsboro
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <555@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard) writes:
>Yes, "call by reference" makes sense many times. However, "call by value," 
>"call by name," and redundancy have their places.

I (belatedly) agree.  The situations with which I am most familiar are
networked (not truely distributed) real-time applications where the cost of
maintaining the consistency of the database is high enough already without
having to deal with multiple writable objects, hence my intial skepticism.  

My tendency is not to stray from the "call by reference" model unless special
circunstances prevail, and clearly, as Ed Berard has pointed out, some exist.