???
My "theory" is being extremely widely used in practice. Take a look at the Intel FDIV bug history and its consequences for example. They've been formally certifying critical parts of the hardware ever since then.
Or take a look at the widely used seL4 kernel: http://ssrg.nicta.com.au/projects/seL4/
> In practice the vast majority of code is NOT written in total languages.
And this is the problem, not recursion or whatever else. Incompetent coders are evil, and you cannot blame any particular technique for any failures. Luckily, in my practice, nobody ever dared to let any graduate larvae to hang anywhere near any kind of mission-critial code. I've heard stories, of course, but never witnessed anything like that myself.
> they decide there's this recursion thing they read about or learned in school.
As I said, people of this degree of cognitive development will screw up anyway, no matter what techniques they use. In a monkey with a hand grenade situation you should not worry too much about a sharp stick this monkey may accidentally pick up.
> the injection of recursion by the wrong people is dangerous
Pretty much everything else they do is equally or more dangerous anyway.
And, getting back to your rant which started this thread - you said that recursion is dangerous and useless. Unconditionally.
Now it turns out that it may be dangerous, but only when used by complete tools and only in heavily mission-critical embedded projects. Quite a distance from what you've said originally. No wonder you've got such a response.