On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 20:36:02 +1000, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:07:28 +0100, phil hunt wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:56:06 +1000, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>>Are you saying that the recursion done by "serious" languages is a fake? >>>That it is actually implemented behind the scenes by iteration? >>> >>>It seems to me that if recursion and iteration produce "the exact same >>>machine code", the argument for preferring recursion over iteration is >>>gutted. >> >> It seems to me that if a high level language and assembler produce >> "the exact same machine code", the argument for preferring high >> level languages is gutted. >> >> Do you see the fallacy in your statement now? > >Ah, yes, you got me on that one. > >But there is a difference: writing assembly is *hard*, which is why we >prefer not to do it. Are you suggesting that functional programming is >significantly easier to do than declarative?
No. I'm saying that under some circumstances it might be easier to write code as a recursive routine than a loop. In those circumstances, why should I care if the compiler then re-encodes my recursive routine as a loop, so long as the program gives the correct answer. Compilers/interpreters/runtimes are black boxes: we don't (or shouldn't) care how they do their work as long as they run correctly and aren't too heavy on system resources like CPU time and memory. -- Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
