Tail Recursion

A function is tail recursive if it calls itself recursively but does not perform any computation after the recursive call returns, and immediately returns to its caller the value of its recursive call. Consider these two implementations, sum and sum_tr of summing a list, where we've provided some type annotations to help you understand the code:

let rec sum (l : int list) : int =
match l with
[] -> 0
| x :: xs -> x + (sum xs)

let rec sum_plus_acc (acc : int) (l : int list) : int =
match l with
[] -> acc
| x :: xs -> sum_plus_acc (acc + x) xs

let sum_tr : int list -> int =
sum_plus_acc 0


Observe the following difference between the sum and sum_tr functions above: In the sum function, which is not tail recursive, after the recursive call returned its value, we add x to it. In the tail recursive sum_tr, or rather in sum_plus_acc, after the recursive call returns, we immediately return the value without further computation.

Why do we care about tail recursion? Actually, sometimes functional programmers fixate a bit too much upon it. If all you care about is writing the first draft of a function, you probably don't need to worry about it.

But if you're going to write functions on really long lists, tail recursion becomes important for performance. Recall (from CS 1110) that there is a call stack, which is a stack (the data structure with push and pop operations) with one element for each function call that has been started but has not yet completed. Each element stores things like the value of local variables and what part of the function has not been evaluated yet. When the evaluation of one function body calls another function, a new element is pushed on the call stack and it is popped off when the called function completes.

When a function makes a recursive call to itself and there is nothing more for the caller to do after the callee returns (except return the callee's result), this situation is called a tail call. Functional languages like OCaml (and even imperative languages like C++) typically include an hugely useful optimization: when a call is a tail call, the caller's stack-frame is popped before the call—the callee's stack-frame just replaces the caller's. This makes sense: the caller was just going to return the callee's result anyway. With this optimization, recursion can sometimes be as efficient as a while loop in imperative languages (such loops don't make the call-stack bigger.) The "sometimes" is exactly when calls are tail calls—something both you and the compiler can (often) figure out. With tail-call optimization, the space performance of a recursive algorithm can be reduced from $O(n)$ to $O(1)$, that is, from one stack frame per call to a single stack frame for all calls.

So when you have a choice between using a tail-recursive vs. non-tail-recursive function, you are likely better off using the tail-recursive function on really long lists to achieve space efficiency. For that reason, the List module documents which functions are tail recursive and which are not.

But that doesn't mean that a tail-recursive implementation is strictly better. For example, the tail-recursive function might be harder to read. (Consider sum_plus_acc.) Also, there are cases where implementing a tail-recursive function entails having to do a pre- or post-processing pass to reverse the list. On small to medium sized lists, the overhead of reversing the list (both in time and in allocating memory for the reversed list) can make the tail-recursive version less time efficient. What constitutes "small" vs. "big" here? That's hard to say, but maybe 10,000 is a good estimate, according to the standard library documentation of the List module.