使用递归，每次“迭代”都会产生函数调用的成本，而使用循环，你通常只需要支付递增/递减的代价。因此，如果循环的代码并不比递归解决方案的代码复杂多少，循环通常会优于递归。

如果我们使用循环而不是 递归或者反之，在算法中两者都可以达到相同的目的?”

Usually yes if you are writing in a imperative language iteration will run faster than recursion, the performance hit is minimized in problems where the iterative solution requires manipulating Stacks and popping items off of a stack due to the recursive nature of the problem. There are a lot of times where the recursive implementation is much easier to read because the code is much shorter, so you do want to consider maintainability. Especailly in cases where the problem has a recursive nature. So take for example:

河内塔的递归实现:

def TowerOfHanoi(n , source, destination, auxiliary):
    if n==1:
        print ("Move disk 1 from source",source,"to destination",destination)
        return
    TowerOfHanoi(n-1, source, auxiliary, destination)
    print ("Move disk",n,"from source",source,"to destination",destination)
    TowerOfHanoi(n-1, auxiliary, destination, source)

相当短，很容易读。将其与对应的迭代TowerOfHanoi进行比较:

# Python3 program for iterative Tower of Hanoi
import sys
 
# A structure to represent a stack
class Stack:
    # Constructor to set the data of
    # the newly created tree node
    def __init__(self, capacity):
        self.capacity = capacity
        self.top = -1
        self.array = [0]*capacity
 
# function to create a stack of given capacity.
def createStack(capacity):
    stack = Stack(capacity)
    return stack
  
# Stack is full when top is equal to the last index
def isFull(stack):
    return (stack.top == (stack.capacity - 1))
   
# Stack is empty when top is equal to -1
def isEmpty(stack):
    return (stack.top == -1)
   
# Function to add an item to stack.
# It increases top by 1
def push(stack, item):
    if(isFull(stack)):
        return
    stack.top+=1
    stack.array[stack.top] = item
   
# Function to remove an item from stack.
# It decreases top by 1
def Pop(stack):
    if(isEmpty(stack)):
        return -sys.maxsize
    Top = stack.top
    stack.top-=1
    return stack.array[Top]
   
# Function to implement legal
# movement between two poles
def moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(src, dest, s, d):
    pole1TopDisk = Pop(src)
    pole2TopDisk = Pop(dest)
 
    # When pole 1 is empty
    if (pole1TopDisk == -sys.maxsize):
        push(src, pole2TopDisk)
        moveDisk(d, s, pole2TopDisk)
       
    # When pole2 pole is empty
    else if (pole2TopDisk == -sys.maxsize):
        push(dest, pole1TopDisk)
        moveDisk(s, d, pole1TopDisk)
       
    # When top disk of pole1 > top disk of pole2
    else if (pole1TopDisk > pole2TopDisk):
        push(src, pole1TopDisk)
        push(src, pole2TopDisk)
        moveDisk(d, s, pole2TopDisk)
       
    # When top disk of pole1 < top disk of pole2
    else:
        push(dest, pole2TopDisk)
        push(dest, pole1TopDisk)
        moveDisk(s, d, pole1TopDisk)
   
# Function to show the movement of disks
def moveDisk(fromPeg, toPeg, disk):
    print("Move the disk", disk, "from '", fromPeg, "' to '", toPeg, "'")
   
# Function to implement TOH puzzle
def tohIterative(num_of_disks, src, aux, dest):
    s, d, a = 'S', 'D', 'A'
   
    # If number of disks is even, then interchange
    # destination pole and auxiliary pole
    if (num_of_disks % 2 == 0):
        temp = d
        d = a
        a = temp
    total_num_of_moves = int(pow(2, num_of_disks) - 1)
   
    # Larger disks will be pushed first
    for i in range(num_of_disks, 0, -1):
        push(src, i)
   
    for i in range(1, total_num_of_moves + 1):
        if (i % 3 == 1):
            moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(src, dest, s, d)
   
        else if (i % 3 == 2):
            moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(src, aux, s, a)
   
        else if (i % 3 == 0):
            moveDisksBetweenTwoPoles(aux, dest, a, d)
 
# Input: number of disks
num_of_disks = 3
 
# Create three stacks of size 'num_of_disks'
# to hold the disks
src = createStack(num_of_disks)
dest = createStack(num_of_disks)
aux = createStack(num_of_disks)
 
tohIterative(num_of_disks, src, aux, dest)

Now the first one is way easier to read because suprise suprise shorter code is usually easier to understand than code that is 10 times longer. Sometimes you want to ask yourself is the extra performance gain really worth it? The amount of hours wasted debugging the code. Is the iterative TowerOfHanoi faster than the Recursive TowerOfHanoi? Probably, but not by a big margin. Would I like to program Recursive problems like TowerOfHanoi using iteration? Hell no. Next we have another recursive function the Ackermann function: Using recursion:

    if m == 0:
        # BASE CASE
        return n + 1
    elif m > 0 and n == 0:
        # RECURSIVE CASE
        return ackermann(m - 1, 1)
    elif m > 0 and n > 0:
        # RECURSIVE CASE
        return ackermann(m - 1, ackermann(m, n - 1))

使用迭代:

callStack = [{'m': 2, 'n': 3, 'indentation': 0, 'instrPtr': 'start'}]
returnValue = None

while len(callStack) != 0:
    m = callStack[-1]['m']
    n = callStack[-1]['n']
    indentation = callStack[-1]['indentation']
    instrPtr = callStack[-1]['instrPtr']

    if instrPtr == 'start':
        print('%sackermann(%s, %s)' % (' ' * indentation, m, n))

        if m == 0:
            # BASE CASE
            returnValue = n + 1
            callStack.pop()
            continue
        elif m > 0 and n == 0:
            # RECURSIVE CASE
            callStack[-1]['instrPtr'] = 'after first recursive case'
            callStack.append({'m': m - 1, 'n': 1, 'indentation': indentation + 1, 'instrPtr': 'start'})
            continue
        elif m > 0 and n > 0:
            # RECURSIVE CASE
            callStack[-1]['instrPtr'] = 'after second recursive case, inner call'
            callStack.append({'m': m, 'n': n - 1, 'indentation': indentation + 1, 'instrPtr': 'start'})
            continue
    elif instrPtr == 'after first recursive case':
        returnValue = returnValue
        callStack.pop()
        continue
    elif instrPtr == 'after second recursive case, inner call':
        callStack[-1]['innerCallResult'] = returnValue
        callStack[-1]['instrPtr'] = 'after second recursive case, outer call'
        callStack.append({'m': m - 1, 'n': returnValue, 'indentation': indentation + 1, 'instrPtr': 'start'})
        continue
    elif instrPtr == 'after second recursive case, outer call':
        returnValue = returnValue
        callStack.pop()
        continue
print(returnValue)

再说一次，递归实现更容易理解。所以我的结论是，如果问题本质上是递归的，需要操作堆栈中的项，就使用递归。

递归可能会更昂贵，这取决于递归函数是否是尾部递归(最后一行是递归调用)。尾递归应该被编译器识别，并优化为迭代的对应部分(同时保持代码中简洁、清晰的实现)。

我将以最有意义的方式编写算法，并且对那些不得不在几个月或几年内维护代码的可怜的傻瓜(无论是你自己还是其他人)来说是最清楚的。如果你遇到了性能问题，那就分析你的代码，然后，只有在那之后，你才能通过迭代实现来进行优化。您可能需要研究一下内存和动态编程。

Your performance deteriorates when using recursion because calling a method, in any language, implies a lot of preparation: the calling code posts a return address, call parameters, some other context information such as processor registers might be saved somewhere, and at return time the called method posts a return value which is then retrieved by the caller, and any context information that was previously saved will be restored. the performance diff between an iterative and a recursive approach lies in the time these operations take.

从实现的角度来看，当处理调用上下文所需的时间与执行方法所需的时间相当时，您才真正开始注意到差异。如果递归方法的执行时间比调用上下文管理部分要长，那么就采用递归方法，因为代码通常更易于阅读和理解，而且不会注意到性能损失。否则，出于效率考虑，可以进行迭代。

我相信java中的尾递归目前还没有优化。关于LtU和相关链接的详细讨论贯穿始终。它可能是即将到来的版本7中的一个功能，但显然，当与堆栈检查结合使用时，它会出现一些困难，因为某些帧会丢失。自Java 2以来，堆栈检查一直用于实现他们的细粒度安全模型。

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1333

If the iterations are atomic and orders of magnitude more expensive than pushing a new stack frame and creating a new thread and you have multiple cores and your runtime environment can use all of them, then a recursive approach could yield a huge performance boost when combined with multithreading. If the average number of iterations is not predictable then it might be a good idea to use a thread pool which will control thread allocation and prevent your process from creating too many threads and hogging the system.

例如，在某些语言中，存在递归多线程归并排序实现。

但同样，多线程可以与循环而不是递归一起使用，因此这种组合的工作效果取决于更多因素，包括操作系统及其线程分配机制。