Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #89712
| From | Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Python is not bad ;-) |
| Organization | Decebal Computing |
| References | <87mw1q9jqw.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <mailman.121.1430385051.3680.python-list@python.org> <87383hj4zj.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <87d22lx38x.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <55432557$0$12994$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| Date | 2015-05-01 09:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87618crb7q.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> (permalink) |
Op Friday 1 May 2015 09:03 CEST schreef Steven D'Aprano: > On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:30 pm, Cecil Westerhof wrote: > >> Tail recursion would nice to have also. > > People coming from functional languages like Lisp and Haskell often > say that, but how many recursive algorithms naturally take a > tail-call form? Not that many. When I was playing with Scala there where a few cases where tail recursion made a significant performance boost. Is some time ago, so I do not remember which. > I suppose that it would be nice if Python let you optionally use > tail-call optimization, but that might be tricky in practice. That is the difference between Scala and Clojure. Scala does it silently, while by Clojure you have to say you want it. When a chance breaks tail recursion Scala just compiles, but your code becomes slower, Clojure does not compile. I prefer the Clojure variant. -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 09:07 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-30 19:10 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-30 13:16 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 20:52 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:30 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 17:03 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-01 09:47 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-01 19:56 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-05-02 19:44 +1200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 10:26 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:10 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 19:25 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:58 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:22 -0400
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 20:42 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:07 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 21:21 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:32 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 14:42 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:45 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-03 01:55 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 16:50 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 18:53 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:00 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:17 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-02 18:22 +0100
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 12:29 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 11:33 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:35 -0400
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 13:12 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:31 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 15:56 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:10 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 08:03 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 18:11 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-04-30 19:59 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 22:05 +0200
csiph-web