[erlang-questions] Erlang for youngsters
Tue Jun 24 00:38:19 CEST 2014
I do however see how the idea encapsulated by "X = X+1" is the root of many
computation problems - and is probably not a great thing to teach to kids
On Monday, June 23, 2014 5:34:04 PM UTC-5, Steve Davis wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> I'm confused by your response... is it possible to do tail-recursion in
> Java (and thus make iteration and recursion similar)?
> I had imagined that each recursive function call in a JVM would add a
> frame to the stack and eventually cause an overflow.
> Maybe I missed making my point. :(
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 11:40:54 PM UTC-5, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>> On 21/06/2014, at 12:58 PM, Steve Davis wrote:
>> > It's not hard... but can be extremely expensive if it builds a call
>> stack (e.g. Java)...
>> Presumably "It" here refers to "recursion".
>> Extremely expensive compared to *what*?
>> There are problems where you could naturally use either
>> iteration or tail recursion, and it doesn't matter which
>> one you use because they are the same thing.
>> And there are problems that can be expressed simply using
>> general recursion. For those problems, doing without it
>> results in code that harder for people and worse for computers.
>> There can be no problems that are easier with iteration than
>> recursion, although there can be problems that are easier
>> with particular *syntax*.
>> If we are talking about "Erlang for youngsters",
>> I wonder whether it might not be easier to teach
>> the *use* of higher-order traversal functions than
>> direct loops of any kind. I remember it being
>> *amazing* how much you could get done in APL without
>> a loop of your own in sight.
>> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions