3 ms·
It's not CS 101 that JavaScript apparently sucks at TCO. That was surprising to me.
by valleyer 2mo ago
It's not CS 101 that JavaScript apparently sucks at TCO. That was surprising to me.
- dnbfbfhf 2mo agoThe CS 101 model of computing doesn’t have TCO… which makes it pretty accurate to the real world.
- ckcheng 2mo agoTCO is surprisingly commonly supported in the real world. TCO is supported in C++ compilers, JavaScript in Safari, Scala, Clojure in a way, etc.! For instance: "All current mainstream [C++] compilers perform tail call optimisation fairly well (and have done for more than a decade), even for mutually recursive calls" [1]. "As of July 22, 2023 Safari is the only browser that supports tail call optimization" of JavaScript [2]. "Since Clojure uses the Java calling conventions, it cannot, and does not, make the same tail call optimization guarantees. Instead, it provides the recur special operator, which does constant-space recursive looping" [3]. "The Scala compiler will automatically optimize any truly tail-recursive method. If you annotate a method that you believe is tail-recursive with the @tailrec annotation, then the compiler will warn you if the method is actually not tail-recursive" [4]. [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/34129 https://stackoverflow.com/a/34129 [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/37224563 https://stackoverflow.com/a/37224563 [3]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/34097339 https://stackoverflow.com/a/34097339 [4]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3114245 https://stackoverflow.com/a/3114245
- ignoramous 2mo agoHeh, reminds me of this talk at !!conf: Tail Call Optimization: The Musical, https://youtu.be/-PX0BV9hGZY https://youtu.be/-PX0BV9hGZY (2019).