我认为在(非尾)递归中，每当函数被调用时，分配一个新的堆栈等都会受到性能影响(当然取决于语言)。

递归?从哪里开始呢，维基会告诉你"这是以一种自相似的方式重复项目的过程"

在我做C语言的时候，c++的递归是上帝的恩赐，就像“尾递归”。您还会发现许多排序算法使用递归。快速排序示例:http://alienryderflex.com/quicksort/

递归就像任何其他算法一样，适用于特定的问题。也许你不能马上或经常找到一个用途，但会有问题，你会很高兴它可用。

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。

对于可以分解成多个更小的部分的问题，递归比迭代更好。

例如，要制作一个递归斐波那契算法，您将fib(n)分解为fib(n-1)和fib(n-2)，并计算这两部分。迭代只允许你一遍又一遍地重复一个函数。

然而，Fibonacci实际上是一个坏例子，我认为迭代实际上更有效。注意fib(n) = fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)和fib(n-1) = fib(n-2) + fib(n-3)。Fib (n-1)被计算了两次!

一个更好的例子是树的递归算法。分析父节点的问题可以分解为分析每个子节点的多个更小的问题。与斐波那契例子不同，较小的问题是相互独立的。

所以，对于那些可以分解成多个、更小、独立、相似问题的问题，递归比迭代更好。

在许多情况下，由于缓存提高了性能，递归更快。例如，这是一个使用传统归并例程的归并排序的迭代版本。它将比递归实现运行得慢，因为缓存改进了性能。

迭代实现

public static void sort(Comparable[] a)
{
    int N = a.length;
    aux = new Comparable[N];
    for (int sz = 1; sz < N; sz = sz+sz)
        for (int lo = 0; lo < N-sz; lo += sz+sz)
            merge(a, lo, lo+sz-1, Math.min(lo+sz+sz-1, N-1));
}

递归实现

private static void sort(Comparable[] a, Comparable[] aux, int lo, int hi)
{
    if (hi <= lo) return;
    int mid = lo + (hi - lo) / 2;
    sort(a, aux, lo, mid);
    sort(a, aux, mid+1, hi);
    merge(a, aux, lo, mid, hi);
}

PS -这是Kevin Wayne教授(普林斯顿大学)在Coursera上的算法课程上讲的。

使用Chrome 45.0.2454.85 m，递归似乎要快得多。

代码如下:

(function recursionVsForLoop(global) {
    "use strict";

    // Perf test
    function perfTest() {}

    perfTest.prototype.do = function(ns, fn) {
        console.time(ns);
        fn();
        console.timeEnd(ns);
    };

    // Recursion method
    (function recur() {
        var count = 0;
        global.recurFn = function recurFn(fn, cycles) {
            fn();
            count = count + 1;
            if (count !== cycles) recurFn(fn, cycles);
        };
    })();

    // Looped method
    function loopFn(fn, cycles) {
        for (var i = 0; i < cycles; i++) {
            fn();
        }
    }

    // Tests
    var curTest = new perfTest(),
        testsToRun = 100;

    curTest.do('recursion', function() {
        recurFn(function() {
            console.log('a recur run.');
        }, testsToRun);
    });

    curTest.do('loop', function() {
        loopFn(function() {
            console.log('a loop run.');
        }, testsToRun);
    });

})(window);

结果

//使用标准for循环运行100次

循环运行100x。 完成时间:7.683ms

//使用带有尾递归的函数递归方法运行100次

100x递归运行。 完成时间:4.841毫秒

在下面的截图中，当每次测试运行300次循环时，递归再次以更大的优势获胜