Reputation: 198837
Apparently, there's been a big brouhaha over whether or not Python needs tail-call optimization (TCO). This came to a head when someone shipped Guido a copy of SICP, because he didn't "get it." I'm in the same boat as Guido. I understand the concept of tail-call optimization. I just can't think of any reason why Python really needs it.
To make this easier for me to understand, what would be a snippet of code that would be greatly simplified using TCO?
Upvotes: 20
Views: 1923
Reputation: 62681
Personally, I put great value on tail call optimization; but mainly because it makes recursion as efficient as iteration (or makes iteration a subset of recursion). In minimalistic languages you get huge expressive power without sacrificing performance.
In a 'practical' language (like Python), OTOH, you usually have a lot of other constructions for almost every situation imaginable, so it's less critical. It is always a good thing to have, to allow for unforeseen situations, of course.
Upvotes: 16
Reputation: 27008
Tail-call optimization makes it easier to write recursive functions without worrying about a stack overflow:
def fac(n, result=1):
if n > 1:
return fac(n - 1, n * result)
return result
Without tail-call optimization, calling this with a big number could overflow the stack.
Upvotes: 5
Reputation: 1829
Guido recognized in a follow up post that TCO allowed a cleaner the implementation of state machine as a collection of functions recursively calling each other. However in the same post he proposes an alternative equally cleaner solution without TCO.
Upvotes: 0
Reputation: 882721
If you intensely want to use recursion for things that might alternatively be expressed as loops, then "tail call optimization" is really a must. However, Guido, Python's Benevolent Dictator For Life (BDFL), strongly believes in loops being expressed as loops -- so he's not going to special-case tail calls (sacrificing stack-trace dumps and debugging regularity).
Upvotes: 6