# Missing TCO in Ruby

TL;DR: Today I the lack of tail call optimization in ruby bit me. This post shows that despite the elegance of recursive solutions, one has to protect {him,her}self against the dreaded StackOverflowError.

I have started the course Algorithms: Design and Analysis, Part 1 from Coursera last week. The first programming assignment was to implement the counting of inversions in a big array of numbers, shuffled from 0 to 100,000.

The problem of counting inversions is the following:

An inversion occurs in the following situation:

Given an i in the set [ 0, n-1 ], if there exists a j in [ i +1, n-1 ] such that x [ i ] > x [ j ], [ i, j ] is an inversion in x. The number of inversions in i is the number of such j’s that satisfy this condition.

The number of inversions in x is the sum of inversions for all i in [ 0, n-1 ]

A naive approach to solving this problem would be for each i in [0, n-1], scan the sub-array *x*[/i/../n/-1] and count such inversions. This approach would lead to O(n²) execution time.

A more clever approach would be to piggyback on the merge-sort algorithm to count the inversions [reference here].

Since I’m that weird guy that learned functional programming before object oriented programming, I’ve happily implemented the merge algorithm in Ruby in the most natural way:

(The implementation used to actually solve the problem keeps track of the inversions while executing the merge sort. I’ve kept this out of the following snippets to simplify my point about the lack of TCO in Ruby.)

``````def pretty_merge(left, right, acc = [])
return (acc + left + right) if left.empty? || right.empty?

(lhead, *ltail) = left
(rhead, *rtail) = right

pretty_merge(ltail, right, acc + [lhead])
else
pretty_merge(left, rtail, acc + [rhead])
end
end
``````

I even took the care to make the method tail-recursive. To my surprise, when I actually ran the algorithm in the full data set:

``````\$ ./solve.rb
> ~/rralgo007/lib/week1/inversions.rb:54: stack level too deep (SystemStackError)
``````

What a shame! In order to fix this, I had to implement the merge step in this terrible and ugly way: (actually, the first iteration was way worse than this. This ugliness was the best I could achieve)

``````def ugly_merge(left, right)
result = []

until left.empty? || right.empty?
if left.first <= right.first
(lhead, *left) = left
else
(rhead, *right) = right