From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:38:57 PST."
	<3e1162e60903061238s5af328eo9a8f2cfcc4c71ae8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <138575260903030352s623807d7p5a3075b1f7a591f6@mail.gmail.com>
	<3e1162e60903030719v141b41e9ma5fd98c73d8b0e7c@mail.gmail.com>
	<1236103870.4929.101.camel@goose.sun.com>
	<20090303183836.2DE505B2E@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<1236365240.16176.2826.camel@work>
	<3e1162e60903061238s5af328eo9a8f2cfcc4c71ae8@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bakul Shah <bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com>
Date: Sat,  7 Mar 2009 00:00:15 -0800
Message-Id: <20090307080016.36FD95B63@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] threads vs forks
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b5e0841c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:38:57 PST David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> Things like Clojure, or Scala become a bit more interesting when the VM is
> extended to allow tail recursion to happen in a nice way.

A lack of TCO is not something that will prevent you from
writing many interesting programs (except things like a state
machine as a set of mutually calling functions!).

There is nothing in Clojure, or C for that matter, that will
disallow tail call optimization should an implemention
provide it.  It is just that unlike Scheme most programming
languages do not *mandate* that tail calls be optimized.