Stack Visualizer — C vs JavaScript

Step through a recursive call to factorial(N) in both C and JavaScript, frame by frame. Both languages follow the same LIFO discipline; the per-frame cost differs because JavaScript carries more context per call (environment record, closure, this) than a bare C activation record.

Controls
factorial(3)
Active frames: 0 / 3
C total: 0 B JS total: 0 B Δ (JS − C): 0 B

C low-level activation record

int factorial(int n) { if (n <= 1) return 1; return n * factorial(n - 1); } // main: factorial(3)
No active calls. Click "call" or "full recursion".
Per C frame: return addr (8B) + base ptr (8B) + param (4B) + alignment + locals ≈ 48 B

JavaScript ECMAScript execution context

function factorial(n) { if (n <= 1) return 1; return n * factorial(n - 1); } // factorial(3)
No active calls. Click "call" or "full recursion".
Per JS frame: environment record, this, arguments, scope chain ≈ 96 B

Both stacks follow LIFO. The C stack exposes explicit return addresses and frame layout; JavaScript abstracts them, but the underlying mechanism is the same.

Memory delta grows with recursion depth, illustrating JavaScript's richer per-call context.