<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 20 May 2011, at 13:08, Paul Barry wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Both books talk about the efficiency of tail recursion over direct<br>recursion with a bit of talk about how the run-time may optimize for<br>code that isn't tail recursive to improve its performance. The<br>suggestion seems to be that in older versions of the run-time, tail<br>recursion won hands down, but that nowadays this may not always be the<br>case. Is there an update on this?</span></blockquote><br></div><div>The Erlang/OTP Efficiency Guide is the most up-to-date document on the matter.</div><div><br></div><div>E.g. Chapter 5.4 - Why you should not worry about recursive lists functions</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.erlang.org/doc/efficiency_guide/listHandling.html#id64754">http://www.erlang.org/doc/efficiency_guide/listHandling.html#id64754</a></div><div><br></div><div>BR,</div><div>Ulf W</div><br><div>
<div>Ulf Wiger, CTO, Erlang Solutions, Ltd.</div><div><a href="http://erlang-solutions.com">http://erlang-solutions.com</a></div><div><br></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br></body></html>