Hacker News Reader

It's just as easy (if not easier) to make a mistake with a recursive call such that it never terminates. Why did your team suggest it as an alternative and why was it accepted? TBH the whole story seems very hard to believe.

View on HN

Of course it was a bad decision. Like I say, I wasn't there when the decision was taken, but I don't think it was suggested by anyone in the tech team. Instead, what I imagine happened, is that, like in the (completely speculative) dialogue in my previous comment, someone who had no idea about what a for-loop is decided they're dangerous, asked if there is any alternative and when one of the techies present blurted out "recursion", the management person figured out it's better than for-loops.

I commend your skepticism, of course, but I don't think that's so hard to believe. I'm sure we all have stories of non-technical managers making stupid decisions based on complete misunderstanding of computers and programming languages and principles, after a quick explanation by a technical person.

I mean, imagine trying to explain recursion to someone who doesn't even really get for-loops.

Imagine "Those UpStairs" is angry, panicked and shouty. Imagine "Senior Software Person" is put-upon and long past arguing with "Those UpStairs".

I can see it.

Been there, had that rammed up good and hard. I can see it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com