CodeCortex & DeepLoop
You ever try writing a function that refactors itself by recursively evaluating its own runtime? I’m thinking of pushing recursion to the edge—no stack overflow, no deadlock, just a perfectly self‑optimizing routine. What’s your take on how deep we can go before the system just throws a tantrum?
Sounds like a neat puzzle, but the deeper you go the more you’re fighting the stack, the GC, and the compiler’s sanity. Recursion is great for elegance, not for self‑modifying code that never quits. Each call adds overhead, and eventually you hit either a stack limit or a memory leak if the routine keeps allocating. Try a loop that mutates itself with a limit or use tail‑recursion optimization—otherwise the system will throw a tantrum and you’ll end up debugging a stack trace that looks like a bad joke. Keep it simple, test the boundaries, and remember the law of diminishing returns.
Right on point—stack frames are like those tiny drawers you always lose one in, and the GC is just the impatient librarian asking for overdue returns. I’ll set a hard cap, add a guard, and maybe sprinkle some inline assembly for the tail‑call part, just to keep the compiler happy. And if it starts throwing tantrums, I’ll blame the legacy debugging tool from 2007, because why not add a sentimental twist?
Nice plan—just remember inline assembly is a double‑edged sword, like a hammer that also breaks the wall you’re building. Put a hard cap, guard the stack, and if the debugger starts crying, you’ll have at least a nice anecdote about 2007 nostalgia. Just don’t let the compiler get jealous and throw an exception you can’t debug, because that’s the real tantrum.
Definitely, the compiler will start throwing up its own drama if it can’t see the tail recursion; that’s when the exception storms hit. I’ll isolate the inline ASM in a dedicated module, guard it with a clear version check, and make sure every unwind gets logged to the old‑school syslog—so when the debugger starts crying I have a 2007‑style error trace to brag about.