Not an OCaml expert either but that looks tail recursive, you’re never going to blow the stack.
You can tell by how after the recursive within aux, its result does not get used within the function. That means that the compiler doesn’t need to push a return address to the stack as the only code that would be at that address is instructions to pop another address and return there, we can short-circuit all that and jump from the r base case (0) directly to where aux(10000) is supposed to return to instead of taking 10000 dumb steps (like practically all procedural languages do because they don’t have tail call optimisation).
This would’ve been different if you had concatenated the string not as an argument to aux.
That was the idea. But I’m not a functional programmer (not a programmer by profession at all lol), so I might’ve done something stupid. Hence the disclaimer. Thanks for confirming.
OCaml certainly isn’t a bad language to learn for a non-professional. It’s almost painfully sensible and well-engineered, you’re far away from hype train nonsense and startup production jank but also not out in the “the purpose of this language is to be beautiful and earn me a PhD” territory, OCaml definitely is a production language.
I thought Tail recursion just gets turned into an iterative loop by the compiler? Hence why you won’t get a stack overflow. And since in procedural languages you can just use a loop in place of a tail recursive function you would never run into this problem, right? At least this is how it was taught to me when I was learning about it in lisp.
Yes you still need the loop part I skipped over that one, only focussing on the “why no return address on the stack” part. It’s what you need to focus on to see whether a recursive call is in a tail position and if it is the compiler does the rest no need to worry about that part.
Not an OCaml expert either but that looks tail recursive, you’re never going to blow the stack.
You can tell by how after the recursive within aux, its result does not get used within the function. That means that the compiler doesn’t need to push a return address to the stack as the only code that would be at that address is instructions to pop another address and return there, we can short-circuit all that and jump from the r base case (0) directly to where aux(10000) is supposed to return to instead of taking 10000 dumb steps (like practically all procedural languages do because they don’t have tail call optimisation).
This would’ve been different if you had concatenated the string not as an argument to aux.
That was the idea. But I’m not a functional programmer (not a programmer by profession at all lol), so I might’ve done something stupid. Hence the disclaimer. Thanks for confirming.
OCaml certainly isn’t a bad language to learn for a non-professional. It’s almost painfully sensible and well-engineered, you’re far away from hype train nonsense and startup production jank but also not out in the “the purpose of this language is to be beautiful and earn me a PhD” territory, OCaml definitely is a production language.
I thought Tail recursion just gets turned into an iterative loop by the compiler? Hence why you won’t get a stack overflow. And since in procedural languages you can just use a loop in place of a tail recursive function you would never run into this problem, right? At least this is how it was taught to me when I was learning about it in lisp.
Yes you still need the loop part I skipped over that one, only focussing on the “why no return address on the stack” part. It’s what you need to focus on to see whether a recursive call is in a tail position and if it is the compiler does the rest no need to worry about that part.