On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:39 -0500, istarex wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 1:07 PM, Neil Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > To answer the question if Haskell has a "stack depth restriction ... > > like Java" the answer is no. It has a stack depth restriction, but its > > absolutely nothing like Java in the way it uses the stack, so you > > can't compare them. > Fair enough. > > > My guess is that Istarex's inner thought might have been along the > > lines of "in Java if I do too much recursion I get a stack overflow, > > but Haskell only has recursion, does that mean I get into stack > > overflows all the time?". I could of course be entirely wrong ;-) > Well, it wasn't quite that simplistic :-). I was considering a > specifically non-tail recursive solution to a problem, and I was > wondering if Haskell has an artificial recursion depth limit. I > didn't stop to consider laziness, and I now realize there's a whole > dimension of this question that I didn't consider. Thanks for the > input guys.
You may want to look at http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Stack_overflow While perhaps for a simple throw-away program it may be beneficial to write code that allocates unnecessary stack, I personally consider unnecessary stack use a bug. A stack overflow, to me, is always indicative of a bug. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe