循环可以提高程序的性能。递归可以为程序员带来性能上的提升。在你的情况下，选择哪个更重要!

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。

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。

递归的内存开销更大，因为每次递归调用通常都需要将一个内存地址推入堆栈，以便稍后程序可以返回到那个地址。

尽管如此，在许多情况下，递归比循环更自然、更可读——比如在处理树的时候。在这些情况下，我建议坚持使用递归。

通常情况下，人们会期望性能损失在另一个方向上。递归调用会导致构建额外的堆栈帧;对此的惩罚各不相同。此外，在一些语言中，如Python(更准确地说，是在某些语言的某些实现中……)，对于递归指定的任务，您可能很容易遇到堆栈限制，例如在树状数据结构中查找最大值。在这些情况下，你应该坚持使用循环。

编写好的递归函数可以在一定程度上降低性能损失，前提是你有一个优化尾部递归的编译器，等等(还要再次检查，确保函数真的是尾部递归——这是许多人都会犯的错误之一)。

除了“边缘”情况(高性能计算、非常大的递归深度等)之外，最好采用最清楚地表达您的意图、设计良好且可维护的方法。仅在确定需求后进行优化。

In C++ if the recursive function is a templated one, then the compiler has more chance to optimize it, as all the type deduction and function instantiations will occur in compile time. Modern compilers can also inline the function if possible. So if one uses optimization flags like -O3 or -O2 in g++, then recursions may have the chance to be faster than iterations. In iterative codes, the compiler gets less chance to optimize it, as it is already in the more or less optimal state (if written well enough).

在我的例子中，我试图通过使用Armadillo矩阵对象，以递归和迭代的方式来实现矩阵求幂。算法可以在这里找到…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation_by_squaring。 我的函数是模板化的，我已经计算了1,000,000个12x12矩阵的10次方。我得到了以下结果:

iterative + optimisation flag -O3 -> 2.79.. sec
recursive + optimisation flag -O3 -> 1.32.. sec

iterative + No-optimisation flag  -> 2.83.. sec
recursive + No-optimisation flag  -> 4.15.. sec

这些结果是使用gcc-4.8与c++11标志(-std=c++11)和Armadillo 6.1与Intel mkl获得的。英特尔编译器也显示了类似的结果。