What is the real difference between Pointers and References?

Question

AKA - What\'s this obsession with pointers?

Having only really used modern, object oriented languages like ActionScript, Java and C#, I don\'t really understand the

Answer 1

Pointers are for directly manipulating the contents of memory.

It's up to you whether you think this is a good thing to do, but it's the basis of how anything gets done in C or assembler.

High-level languages hide pointers behind the scenes: for example a reference in Java is implemented as a pointer in almost any JVM you'll come across, which is why it's called NullPointerException rather than NullReferenceException. But it doesn't let the programmer directly access the memory address it points to, and it can't be modified to take a value other than the address of an object of the correct type. So it doesn't offer the same power (and responsibility) that pointers in low-level languages do.

[Edit: this is an answer to the question 'what's this obsession with pointers?'. All I've compared is assembler/C-style pointers with Java references. The question title has since changed: had I set out to answer the new question I might have mentioned references in languages other than Java]