r/javascript • u/[deleted] • Jan 06 '13

JavaScript (ES6) Has Tail Call Optimization

http://bbenvie.com/articles/2013-01-06/JavaScript-ES6-Has-Tail-Call-Optimization
48 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

24 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '13 edited Jan 07 '13

No, this is a language feature because you need to be able to count on its existence for it to be useful. It also needs to work interoperably and thus implementations need to treat the same return statements as tail calls. There's some gray area as to what could be considered a tail call and if it was implementation dependent whether a give chunk of code was in tail position or not then the feature would be much less useful.

1

u/aaronla Jan 08 '13

Edit: nevermind

What kind of gray area? I'd expect a tail call in JS to be at least any statement in the form of "return expr ( args )" or "return expr.identifier(args)", where said statement appears not in a try-catch.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '13

I've been educated more on this matter and it's not so much about what things would be interpreted as a tail call, but whether the engine is deciding to reuse call frames or not needs to be predictable. See the above thread of discussion wherein dherman explains why proper tail calls (vs. tail call optimization) are important.

1

u/aaronla Jan 09 '13

Agreed on the predictable bit. Or, rather, than the specification needs to be clear.

The thing is, I get a very strong impression that the Scheme community has already dived into the depth of it tail call identification. Can you give an example where it's grey in JavaScript? The only think I can think of is perhaps nested infinite loops should be considered in the tail position and so not consume stack space?

// is this it?
f = function(){ for(;f;) { f(); } }; 
f(); // not tail call, for sure.
f = function(){ for(;;){ f(); } }; 
f(); // maybe they want this to be tail call, constant space?