Programmer Humor

38919 readers

45 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

cat_programmer@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

949

Died from reading this (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 years ago by callmepk@lemmy.world to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

140 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sacredfire@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I thought Tail recursion just gets turned into an iterative loop by the compiler? Hence why you won’t get a stack overflow. And since in procedural languages you can just use a loop in place of a tail recursive function you would never run into this problem, right? At least this is how it was taught to me when I was learning about it in lisp.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Yes you still need the loop part I skipped over that one, only focussing on the "why no return address on the stack" part. It's what you need to focus on to see whether a recursive call is in a tail position and if it is the compiler does the rest no need to worry about that part.