I would argue having the parameters that change during the loop be explicit is a very nice advantage. Agree that the things can be equivalent in terms of execution but the readability and explicitness, and the fact that all the parameters are listed in the same place is great.

▲

weitendorf 5 days ago | parent [-]

Agreed. Some people really like FP a lot, and I think it's underrated that the kinds of functions where TCO is applicable tend to be so simple that they are not really that inelegant when expressed imperatively. My true opinion is that relying on TCO is usually choosing ideological adherence to FP (or "code that looks cooler") over reliability/performance/communication.

That said, just as I'd expect experienced C++ programmers to be able to recognize others' code using RVO and be careful not to restructure things to break it, I'd concede that experienced FP programmers might be unlikely to accidentally break others' TCO. It's just that ad absurdum you cannot expect every developer to be able to read every other developers' mind and recognize/workaround all implicit behavior they encounter.

	▲	eru 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		> [...] and I think it's underrated that the kinds of functions where TCO is applicable tend to be so simple that they are not really that inelegant when expressed imperatively. I suspect you are only thinking of patterns that are basically equivalent to a loop. I might agree with that. TCO really shines when you want to implement state machines. See eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43076088 for an example where using tail calls in Python's interpreter loop gives nice performance benefits. Similar also for LUA. > [...] I'd concede that experienced FP programmers might be unlikely to accidentally break others' TCO. Compiler (or linter) checkable annotations would help here. You are right that you want to make it possible for programmers to statically assert somehow that their function call is a tail call. Btw this reminds me: recursion isn't just something you do in computation, but also in data structures (amongst other things). In eg Rust the members of your data structure are typically just laid out one after another, but when you have a recursive structure (and in certain other cases) you need to box it, otherwise you'd get an infinitely large data structure. Boxing is more or less equivalent to using indirection via a pointer. However, unboxing isn't really like TCO. It's more like in-lining.