[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp

To: address@hidden, address@hidden
Subject: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
From: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <address@hidden>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 16:30:48 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: address@hidden
Reply-to: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <address@hidden>
Sender: address@hidden


   Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 22:21:47 +0200
   From: Pascal Costanza <costanza@iai.uni-bonn.de>
   To: Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs <Guy.Steele@sun.com>
   Cc: ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
   Subject: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp 
performance was Re: problems with lisp
   
   Guy Steele - Sun Microsystems Labs wrote:
   
   > * History quiz: ten brownie points to whoever first correctly
   > explains why I chose the number 700 here.
   
   Because of http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/365230.365257 ? ;)
   

Ten brownie points to you!  (And an extra two for citing the
answer without spoiling it!)

--Guy Steele

Follow-Ups:
- Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
  - From: Bruce Lewis <brlewis@alum.mit.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: OO should break when broken
Next by Date: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lispperformance was Re: problems with lisp
Previous by thread: Re: why tail recursion matters
Next by thread: Re: why tail recursion matters and why Java isn't it, was Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread