Tail Call Optimisation in Java
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
As of Java 8, Java does not provide Tail-Call Optimization (TCO).
On researching about it, I came to know the reason which is:
in jdk classes [...] there are a number of security sensitive methods that rely on counting stack frames between jdk library code and calling code to figure out who's calling them.
However Scala, which is based on JVM has support for Tail-Call Optimisation. Scala does tail recursion optimisation at compile-time. Why can't Java use the same approach ?
PS: Not sure whether the latest version (Java 11 as of now) of Java now has TCO. Would be great if some who knows can share this also.
Note
I know TCO is at backlog and is of lower priority but want to know why can't Java make changes in compile time similar to Scala.
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops. (Source)
java recursion compilation jvm tail-recursion
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
As of Java 8, Java does not provide Tail-Call Optimization (TCO).
On researching about it, I came to know the reason which is:
in jdk classes [...] there are a number of security sensitive methods that rely on counting stack frames between jdk library code and calling code to figure out who's calling them.
However Scala, which is based on JVM has support for Tail-Call Optimisation. Scala does tail recursion optimisation at compile-time. Why can't Java use the same approach ?
PS: Not sure whether the latest version (Java 11 as of now) of Java now has TCO. Would be great if some who knows can share this also.
Note
I know TCO is at backlog and is of lower priority but want to know why can't Java make changes in compile time similar to Scala.
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops. (Source)
java recursion compilation jvm tail-recursion
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
From the video, I came to know that TCO can be done at runtime but for this, changes will be needed in JVM level. Any specific reason why Java does not use similar approach and make changes in javac
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:48
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops.
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:56
Yes it is. Wanted to share the info here. Isn't it the right way ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:01
@Aomine does this look good ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:08
yes. much better.
– Aomine
Nov 17 at 20:24
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
As of Java 8, Java does not provide Tail-Call Optimization (TCO).
On researching about it, I came to know the reason which is:
in jdk classes [...] there are a number of security sensitive methods that rely on counting stack frames between jdk library code and calling code to figure out who's calling them.
However Scala, which is based on JVM has support for Tail-Call Optimisation. Scala does tail recursion optimisation at compile-time. Why can't Java use the same approach ?
PS: Not sure whether the latest version (Java 11 as of now) of Java now has TCO. Would be great if some who knows can share this also.
Note
I know TCO is at backlog and is of lower priority but want to know why can't Java make changes in compile time similar to Scala.
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops. (Source)
java recursion compilation jvm tail-recursion
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
As of Java 8, Java does not provide Tail-Call Optimization (TCO).
On researching about it, I came to know the reason which is:
in jdk classes [...] there are a number of security sensitive methods that rely on counting stack frames between jdk library code and calling code to figure out who's calling them.
However Scala, which is based on JVM has support for Tail-Call Optimisation. Scala does tail recursion optimisation at compile-time. Why can't Java use the same approach ?
PS: Not sure whether the latest version (Java 11 as of now) of Java now has TCO. Would be great if some who knows can share this also.
Note
I know TCO is at backlog and is of lower priority but want to know why can't Java make changes in compile time similar to Scala.
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops. (Source)
java recursion compilation jvm tail-recursion
java recursion compilation jvm tail-recursion
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
edited Nov 17 at 20:13
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
asked Nov 17 at 19:43
rishabh agarwal
692316
692316
From the video, I came to know that TCO can be done at runtime but for this, changes will be needed in JVM level. Any specific reason why Java does not use similar approach and make changes in javac
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:48
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops.
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:56
Yes it is. Wanted to share the info here. Isn't it the right way ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:01
@Aomine does this look good ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:08
yes. much better.
– Aomine
Nov 17 at 20:24
add a comment |
From the video, I came to know that TCO can be done at runtime but for this, changes will be needed in JVM level. Any specific reason why Java does not use similar approach and make changes in javac
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:48
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops.
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:56
Yes it is. Wanted to share the info here. Isn't it the right way ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:01
@Aomine does this look good ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:08
yes. much better.
– Aomine
Nov 17 at 20:24
From the video, I came to know that TCO can be done at runtime but for this, changes will be needed in JVM level. Any specific reason why Java does not use similar approach and make changes in javac
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:48
From the video, I came to know that TCO can be done at runtime but for this, changes will be needed in JVM level. Any specific reason why Java does not use similar approach and make changes in javac
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:48
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops.
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:56
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops.
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:56
Yes it is. Wanted to share the info here. Isn't it the right way ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:01
Yes it is. Wanted to share the info here. Isn't it the right way ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:01
@Aomine does this look good ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:08
@Aomine does this look good ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:08
yes. much better.
– Aomine
Nov 17 at 20:24
yes. much better.
– Aomine
Nov 17 at 20:24
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Why can't Java use the same approach ?
I can't say which approach will be used, but it's better-explained in Project Loom's proposal:
As adding the ability to manipulate call stacks to the JVM will undoubtedly be required, it is also the goal of this project to add an even lighter-weight construct that will allow unwinding the stack to some point and then invoke a method with given arguments (basically, a generalization of efficient tail-calls). We will call that feature unwind-and-invoke, or UAI. It is not the goal of this project to add an automatic tail-call optimization to the JVM.
As far as I've heard, work has not yet begun on tail calls, as Fibers and Continuations seem to currently be a higher priority.
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Why can't Java use the same approach ?
I can't say which approach will be used, but it's better-explained in Project Loom's proposal:
As adding the ability to manipulate call stacks to the JVM will undoubtedly be required, it is also the goal of this project to add an even lighter-weight construct that will allow unwinding the stack to some point and then invoke a method with given arguments (basically, a generalization of efficient tail-calls). We will call that feature unwind-and-invoke, or UAI. It is not the goal of this project to add an automatic tail-call optimization to the JVM.
As far as I've heard, work has not yet begun on tail calls, as Fibers and Continuations seem to currently be a higher priority.
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Why can't Java use the same approach ?
I can't say which approach will be used, but it's better-explained in Project Loom's proposal:
As adding the ability to manipulate call stacks to the JVM will undoubtedly be required, it is also the goal of this project to add an even lighter-weight construct that will allow unwinding the stack to some point and then invoke a method with given arguments (basically, a generalization of efficient tail-calls). We will call that feature unwind-and-invoke, or UAI. It is not the goal of this project to add an automatic tail-call optimization to the JVM.
As far as I've heard, work has not yet begun on tail calls, as Fibers and Continuations seem to currently be a higher priority.
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Why can't Java use the same approach ?
I can't say which approach will be used, but it's better-explained in Project Loom's proposal:
As adding the ability to manipulate call stacks to the JVM will undoubtedly be required, it is also the goal of this project to add an even lighter-weight construct that will allow unwinding the stack to some point and then invoke a method with given arguments (basically, a generalization of efficient tail-calls). We will call that feature unwind-and-invoke, or UAI. It is not the goal of this project to add an automatic tail-call optimization to the JVM.
As far as I've heard, work has not yet begun on tail calls, as Fibers and Continuations seem to currently be a higher priority.
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
Why can't Java use the same approach ?
I can't say which approach will be used, but it's better-explained in Project Loom's proposal:
As adding the ability to manipulate call stacks to the JVM will undoubtedly be required, it is also the goal of this project to add an even lighter-weight construct that will allow unwinding the stack to some point and then invoke a method with given arguments (basically, a generalization of efficient tail-calls). We will call that feature unwind-and-invoke, or UAI. It is not the goal of this project to add an automatic tail-call optimization to the JVM.
As far as I've heard, work has not yet begun on tail calls, as Fibers and Continuations seem to currently be a higher priority.
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
answered Nov 17 at 19:50
Jacob G.
14.6k51961
14.6k51961
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53354898%2ftail-call-optimisation-in-java%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
From the video, I came to know that TCO can be done at runtime but for this, changes will be needed in JVM level. Any specific reason why Java does not use similar approach and make changes in javac
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:48
Java doesn't have tail call optimization for the same reason most imperative languages don't have it. Imperative loops are the preferred style of the language, and the programmer can replace tail recursion with imperative loops.
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 19:56
Yes it is. Wanted to share the info here. Isn't it the right way ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:01
@Aomine does this look good ?
– rishabh agarwal
Nov 17 at 20:08
yes. much better.
– Aomine
Nov 17 at 20:24