Tail call optimizations and Go

Here is just a little benchmark of how re-structuring a recursive function can lead to better performance with tail call optimizations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWLyIBkBrl0 is a video comparing Rust and Go, and the POST implementation where it used a Fibonacci recursive function to simulate load. Two things though. First, the algorithms between the Go and Rust versions weren't the same. And second, the recursion used by the benchmark isn't written in a way such that the Go compiler can optimize the recursion. Now, granted on that second point, the purpose of the recursive call is to simulate some form of load - and optimizing would defeat the purpose.

To be clear, the resulting assessment of the video is correct - Rust has better performance than Go, just not by the scales the author presented.

Local results

↪ go test -bench=.
goos: darwin
goarch: arm64
pkg: shifteleven.com/recursionbenchmark
BenchmarkBasicRecursion-8                      4         312238250 ns/op
BenchmarkExtraCaseRecursion-8                  7         150884179 ns/op
BenchmarkTCORecursion-8                 33120693             35.36 ns/op
PASS
ok      shifteleven.com/recursionbenchmark      5.051s