News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Don’t Think, Just Defunctionalize. Parent comment

Re:Don’t Think, Just Defunctionalize by jpcooper on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @10:35AM (#25518630)
Yes. My in-order tree traversal example corresponded to how I would implement it in a C-like language. As long as the person setting the question can confirm that the maximum depth is well below the stack size, it stays recursive, though.

By the way, Haskell has stack problems as well when evaluating thunks. Hence the strict foldl’.

https://wiki.haskell.org/Stack_overflow

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Don’t Think, Just Defunctionalize by CyberRabbi on Wednesday December 23, 2020 @02:37PM (#25521246)
Right... probably nearly every language has a poor call stack overflow recovery story, not only because of non-heap stacks but I don’t think it’s relatively straightforward to get the program back into a well defined state after call stack overflow. Those errors can happen on any line of code so unless every line of code is guaranteed to be atomic and a coherent state can be derived from the intermediate states, the program will be in an undefined state.
[ Parent | on HN ]