Re:The ancient world before computers had stacks or heaps
by EnigmaFlare on Friday April 05, 2024 @10:30PM
(#39949512)
OK, controlling the recursion depth just means failing more gracefully than a stack overflow. The GP's statement that nobody's likely to encounter a bigger problem is silly. It can happen walking a mesh of a 3D model where perfectly valid geometry or ordering might lead to a million-deep branch.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The ancient world before computers had stacks or heaps
by naasking on Saturday April 06, 2024 @09:35AM
(#39952348)
> The GP's statement that nobody's likely to encounter a bigger problem is silly.
I didn't actually say that, but even supposing I meant that, walking a 3D mesh in a way that requires you to keep stack context sounds like a pretty unlikely/niche scenario, so it seems even that stronger statement is true.
Re:The ancient world before computers had stacks or heaps
by EnigmaFlare on Monday April 08, 2024 @01:35AM
(#39966503)
I must have misunderstood your "Stack growth is just something you don't have to worry about for almost all scenarios you're likely to encounter.".
It's fairly intuitive to walk a mesh recursively by following adjacent edges and you have to keep track of where you've been which means storing a lot of data somewhere. Maybe there are better algorithms but sometimes you just reach for what's most obvious. I suppose there are many analogous applications of traversing a graph structure.