News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by mrkeen on Monday December 22, 2025 @05:55AM (#46353094)
Supporting recursion only to a depth of 1000 (or whatever) is equivalent to supporting loops of up to 1000 iterations.

If I put out a language that crashed after 1000 iterations of a loop, I'd welcome the rudeness.

Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by Ar-Curunir on Monday December 22, 2025 @06:26AM (#46353292)
Plenty of languages, including very serious ones like C and Rust, have bounded recursion depth.
Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by mrkeen on Monday December 22, 2025 @07:53AM (#46353771)
Then let me rephrase:

If every iteration of a while-loop cost you a whole stack frame, then I'd be very rude about that language.

This works, btw:

  #include <stdio.h>

  long calc_sum(int n, long acc) {
    return n == 0
      ? acc
      : calc_sum(n-1, acc+n);
  }

  int main(void) {
    int iters = 2000000;
    printf("Sum 1...%d = %ld\n", iters, calc_sum(iters, 0));
    return 0;
  }
Re:Rue: Higher level than Rust, lower level than Go by zephen on Monday December 22, 2025 @01:51PM (#46357347)
> If every iteration of a while-loop cost you a whole stack frame, then I'd be very rude about that language.

Well, sure, but real programmers know how to do while loops without invoking a function call.