🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4jq2en$g2q@news.cais.com>,
dlabell@paltech.com (David Labell) wrote:

 >>: Looping with out a loop
 >>
 >>: no_loop(0,10);
 >>
 >>: no_loop(int start, int end)
 >>: {
 >>:     if(start != end) {
 >>:         stuff
 >>:         no_loop(start+1,end);
 >>:     }
 >>: }
 >>
 >>: I haven't tested this but you get the idea.
 >
 >Here's a guy who would rather recurse than loop. I don't mean to be rude,
 >but this is typical of C programmers. Why not write it so it says what it
 >does? 
 >
 >Who benefits from your tricks? 

People who write developer tools for debugging blown stacks and corrupted
heaps :-).

Data dependent errors are the production programmer's worst nightmare;
especially as they normally occur at 3:00 AM with some panicked operator
who can't read english on the other end of the line.

I avoid recursion in _any_ production code, no matter how I can minimize
the stack frame.

Recursion can make for visually appealing and simplified code, but in real
terms they're nothing but trouble unless you can absolutely positively
guarantee a finite, known level stack depth.

Nothing can compare to debugging some clever code in the middle of the
night due to the fact that you've got in-order data strung out on a binary
tree, traversed by recusion :-/.

---
The above are my own opinions, and not those of my employer.