Most recursions can be written as tail-recursions. If the compiler can optimize tail-recursions, in which case it will behave like a loop and throw warnings whe

Most recursions can be written as tail-recursions. If the compiler can optimize tail-recursions, in which case it will behave like a loop and throw warnings when a recursion is not a tail-recursion, then the point is moot. With algebraic data-types and pattern matching, often used for indicating the stage of a recursion which includes the exit condition, the compiler can even warn you that you missed a branch. In fact I find it easier to come up with complex loops expressed as tail-recursions, because in time and with practice, it gets easier to reason about all the possible branches and invariants. The real problem is that we need a higher-level systems programming language. > Recursive functions don't have a guarantee of safely running. Neither do loops for that matter. A loop doesn't have any guarantee that it will ever terminate. Most stack overflows that happen are due to recursions with bad or missing exit conditions, but you can have the same problem with plain loops too. > With a little bit of discipline, it's not difficult to avoid buffer overflows. Buffer overflows is amongst the biggest, most expensive problems in this industry and the primary reason for all the invulnerabilities you're seeing in the wild.