Comment by tpoacher

I don't know about real world "examples", but the beauty of tail-call recursion specifically is the theoretical insight that they have a one-to-one mapping with an loop-based equivalent formulation, and vice versa (which is generally not necessarily true of all recursion).

But, for languages that don't have loop constructs and you need to rely on recursion, all you need to do is write your recipe in standard loop form, and then map back to a tail-call syntax. This is often a LOT easier than trying to think of the problem in a recursive mindset from scratch. (though occasionally, the reverse is also true.)

So the only constraint for re-implementing such looped logic onto tailcalls is that this relies on the stack, which may overflow. By providing TCO you are effectively removing that restriction, so it's a very useful thing for a language to support (especially if they don't provide low-level loops).

The title "tail call optimisation" in the package above is a bit of a misnomer, since this is more of a "transformation" than an "optimisation", but effectively the whole loop-tailcall equivalence is exactly what the package mentioned above relies on to work; it uses decorators to transform tail-call recursive functions to their equivalent loop-based formulations, and thus passing the need to create multiple stacks for the recursion (and risk stack overflow), since the translated loop will now take place in a single stack frame.