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。

据我所知，Perl没有优化尾递归调用，但是您可以伪造它。

sub f{
  my($l,$r) = @_;

  if( $l >= $r ){
    return $l;
  } else {

    # return f( $l+1, $r );

    @_ = ( $l+1, $r );
    goto &f;

  }
}

第一次调用时，它将在堆栈上分配空间。然后它将改变它的参数，并重新启动子例程，而不向堆栈添加任何东西。因此，它会假装从未调用过自己，将其转变为一个迭代过程。

注意，没有“my @_;”或“local @_;”，如果你这样做，它将不再工作。

我发现了这些方法之间的另一个不同之处。 它看起来简单而不重要，但当你准备面试时，它有一个非常重要的角色，所以仔细看。

简而言之: 1)迭代后序遍历并不容易——这使得DFT更加复杂 2)循环检查更容易递归

细节:

在递归的情况下，很容易创建前后遍历:

想象一个相当标准的问题:“当任务依赖于其他任务时，打印所有应该执行的任务以执行任务5”

例子:

    //key-task, value-list of tasks the key task depends on
    //"adjacency map":
    Map<Integer, List<Integer>> tasksMap = new HashMap<>();
    tasksMap.put(0, new ArrayList<>());
    tasksMap.put(1, new ArrayList<>());

    List<Integer> t2 = new ArrayList<>();
    t2.add(0);
    t2.add(1);
    tasksMap.put(2, t2);

    List<Integer> t3 = new ArrayList<>();
    t3.add(2);
    t3.add(10);
    tasksMap.put(3, t3);

    List<Integer> t4 = new ArrayList<>();
    t4.add(3);
    tasksMap.put(4, t4);

    List<Integer> t5 = new ArrayList<>();
    t5.add(3);
    tasksMap.put(5, t5);

    tasksMap.put(6, new ArrayList<>());
    tasksMap.put(7, new ArrayList<>());

    List<Integer> t8 = new ArrayList<>();
    t8.add(5);
    tasksMap.put(8, t8);

    List<Integer> t9 = new ArrayList<>();
    t9.add(4);
    tasksMap.put(9, t9);

    tasksMap.put(10, new ArrayList<>());

    //task to analyze:
    int task = 5;


    List<Integer> res11 = getTasksInOrderDftReqPostOrder(tasksMap, task);
    System.out.println(res11);**//note, no reverse required**

    List<Integer> res12 = getTasksInOrderDftReqPreOrder(tasksMap, task);
    Collections.reverse(res12);//note reverse!
    System.out.println(res12);

    private static List<Integer> getTasksInOrderDftReqPreOrder(Map<Integer, List<Integer>> tasksMap, int task) {
         List<Integer> result = new ArrayList<>();
         Set<Integer> visited = new HashSet<>();
         reqPreOrder(tasksMap,task,result, visited);
         return result;
    }

private static void reqPreOrder(Map<Integer, List<Integer>> tasksMap, int task, List<Integer> result, Set<Integer> visited) {

    if(!visited.contains(task)) {
        visited.add(task);
        result.add(task);//pre order!
        List<Integer> children = tasksMap.get(task);
        if (children != null && children.size() > 0) {
            for (Integer child : children) {
                reqPreOrder(tasksMap,child,result, visited);
            }
        }
    }
}

private static List<Integer> getTasksInOrderDftReqPostOrder(Map<Integer, List<Integer>> tasksMap, int task) {
    List<Integer> result = new ArrayList<>();
    Set<Integer> visited = new HashSet<>();
    reqPostOrder(tasksMap,task,result, visited);
    return result;
}

private static void reqPostOrder(Map<Integer, List<Integer>> tasksMap, int task, List<Integer> result, Set<Integer> visited) {
    if(!visited.contains(task)) {
        visited.add(task);
        List<Integer> children = tasksMap.get(task);
        if (children != null && children.size() > 0) {
            for (Integer child : children) {
                reqPostOrder(tasksMap,child,result, visited);
            }
        }
        result.add(task);//post order!
    }
}

注意，递归后序遍历不需要对结果进行后续反转。孩子先打印，你的任务最后打印。一切都很好。您可以执行递归的预顺序遍历(上面也显示了)，这将需要反转结果列表。

迭代方法并不那么简单!在迭代(一个堆栈)方法中，你只能做一个预排序遍历，所以你必须在最后反转结果数组:

    List<Integer> res1 = getTasksInOrderDftStack(tasksMap, task);
    Collections.reverse(res1);//note reverse!
    System.out.println(res1);

    private static List<Integer> getTasksInOrderDftStack(Map<Integer, List<Integer>> tasksMap, int task) {
    List<Integer> result = new ArrayList<>();
    Set<Integer> visited = new HashSet<>();
    Stack<Integer> st = new Stack<>();


    st.add(task);
    visited.add(task);

    while(!st.isEmpty()){
        Integer node = st.pop();
        List<Integer> children = tasksMap.get(node);
        result.add(node);
        if(children!=null && children.size() > 0){
            for(Integer child:children){
                if(!visited.contains(child)){
                    st.add(child);
                    visited.add(child);
                }
            }
        }
        //If you put it here - it does not matter - it is anyway a pre-order
        //result.add(node);
    }
    return result;
}

看起来很简单，不是吗?

但在一些面试中，这是一个陷阱。

It means the following: with the recursive approach, you can implement Depth First Traversal and then select what order you need pre or post(simply by changing the location of the "print", in our case of the "adding to the result list"). With the iterative (one stack) approach you can easily do only pre-order traversal and so in the situation when children need be printed first(pretty much all situations when you need start print from the bottom nodes, going upwards) - you are in the trouble. If you have that trouble you can reverse later, but it will be an addition to your algorithm. And if an interviewer is looking at his watch it may be a problem for you. There are complex ways to do an iterative post-order traversal, they exist, but they are not simple. Example:https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/iterative-postorder-traversal-using-stack/

因此，底线是:我会在面试中使用递归，这样更容易管理和解释。在任何紧急情况下，您都可以轻松地从前顺序遍历到后顺序遍历。在迭代中，你就没有那么灵活了。

我会使用递归，然后说:“好吧，但是迭代可以让我更直接地控制使用的内存，我可以很容易地测量堆栈大小，并禁止一些危险的溢出。”

递归的另一个优点——避免/注意图中的循环更简单。

例子(preudocode):

dft(n){
    mark(n)
    for(child: n.children){
        if(marked(child)) 
            explode - cycle found!!!
        dft(child)
    }
    unmark(n)
}

在很多情况下，它提供了比迭代方法更优雅的解决方案，常见的例子是遍历二叉树，所以它不一定更难维护。一般来说，迭代版本通常更快一些(在优化过程中可能会取代递归版本)，但递归版本更容易理解和正确实现。

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。

迈克说得对。Java编译器或JVM没有优化尾部递归。你总是会得到这样的堆栈溢出:

int count(int i) {
  return i >= 100000000 ? i : count(i+1);
}