Comments on: String reversing Part II: Tail Recursion http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/ Wed, 09 May 2012 22:39:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: scaevola http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/comment-page-1/#comment-829141 scaevola Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:49:59 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/11/12/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/#comment-829141 I have a one liner with the ternary operator: public String reverseOpt(String str) { return str.charAt(str.length()-1)+((str.length() <2)?"": reverseOpt(str.substring(0,str.length()-1))); } I have a one liner with the ternary operator:
public String reverseOpt(String str) {
return str.charAt(str.length()-1)+((str.length() <2)?"": reverseOpt(str.substring(0,str.length()-1)));
}

]]> By: Javier Mena http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/comment-page-1/#comment-148015 Javier Mena Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:52:13 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/11/12/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/#comment-148015 I was intensive tail recursion use in java, but I "discovered" that sun jvm (at least for java 1.5) doesn't optimizes for tail recursion. Try to implement a recursive fact with a large number, and it will raise a stack overflow exception. There are many developers that don't understand tail recursion. :( I was intensive tail recursion use in java, but I “discovered” that sun jvm (at least for java 1.5) doesn’t optimizes for tail recursion.

Try to implement a recursive fact with a large number, and it will raise a stack overflow exception.

There are many developers that don’t understand tail recursion. :(

]]> By: moose56 blog » Blog Archive » Java string reverse methods analysed http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/comment-page-1/#comment-50983 moose56 blog » Blog Archive » Java string reverse methods analysed Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:49:42 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/11/12/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/#comment-50983 [...] A Recursive version from here [...] [...] A Recursive version from here [...]

]]> By: stephan http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/comment-page-1/#comment-39274 stephan Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:54:38 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/11/12/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/#comment-39274 ;-) ;-)

]]> By: Jonathan Holland http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/comment-page-1/#comment-39272 Jonathan Holland Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:15:08 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/11/12/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/#comment-39272 Hi Stephan, Kudo's for following up with the tail recursion example. Personally, unless your a LISPer, I find that tail recursive solutions are better expressed iteratively. But thats just my opinion, and its been considered faulty before :) Hi Stephan,

Kudo’s for following up with the tail recursion example. Personally, unless your a LISPer, I find that tail recursive solutions are better expressed iteratively.

But thats just my opinion, and its been considered faulty before :)

]]> By: stephan http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/comment-page-1/#comment-38964 stephan Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:51:41 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/11/12/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/#comment-38964 Reading through lambda the ultimate some compilers seem to automatically change recursion to tail recursion, so the beauty in the source is preserved. But I'm no specialist in functional programming. Reading through lambda the ultimate some compilers seem to automatically change recursion to tail recursion, so the beauty in the source is preserved. But I’m no specialist in functional programming.

]]> By: mccoyn http://codemonkeyism.com/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/comment-page-1/#comment-38958 mccoyn Wed, 14 Nov 2007 18:22:14 +0000 http://stephan.reposita.org/archives/2007/11/12/string-reversing-part-ii-tail-recursion/#comment-38958 I agree, tail recursion optimizations take the beauty out of recursion. Some things can be solved very beautifully with recursion until you realize the stack frame or speed implications make it an unscaleable solution. I know a lot of interpreted languages represent the stack as a linked list, or even a linked tree. This gets around the limits on stack space, but makes function calls a little slower. I haven't seen any compliers that attempt to make recursion faster other than with the tail-recursion optimization. I agree, tail recursion optimizations take the beauty out of recursion. Some things can be solved very beautifully with recursion until you realize the stack frame or speed implications make it an unscaleable solution.

I know a lot of interpreted languages represent the stack as a linked list, or even a linked tree. This gets around the limits on stack space, but makes function calls a little slower.

I haven’t seen any compliers that attempt to make recursion faster other than with the tail-recursion optimization.

]]>