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。

这取决于语言。在Java中，你应该使用循环。函数式语言优化递归。

我将通过“归纳”设计一个Haskell数据结构来回答你的问题，这是递归的一种“对偶”。然后我会展示这种对偶性是如何带来好的结果的。

我们为简单树引入一个类型:

data Tree a = Branch (Tree a) (Tree a)
            | Leaf a
            deriving (Eq)

我们可以把这个定义理解为“一棵树是一个分支(包含两棵树)或一个叶子(包含一个数据值)”。叶结点是一种最小的情况。如果树不是叶子，那么它一定是包含两棵树的复合树。这些是唯一的例子。

让我们做一个树:

example :: Tree Int
example = Branch (Leaf 1) 
                 (Branch (Leaf 2) 
                         (Leaf 3))

现在，让我们假设我们想给树中的每个值加1。我们可以通过调用:

addOne :: Tree Int -> Tree Int
addOne (Branch a b) = Branch (addOne a) (addOne b)
addOne (Leaf a)     = Leaf (a + 1)

首先，请注意这实际上是一个递归定义。它将数据构造函数Branch和Leaf作为case(因为Leaf是最小值的，这是唯一可能的case)，我们可以确定函数将终止。

用迭代风格编写addOne需要什么?循环进入任意数量的分支会是什么样子?

此外，这种递归通常可以用“函子”来分解。我们可以通过定义将树变成函子:

instance Functor Tree where fmap f (Leaf a)     = Leaf (f a)
                            fmap f (Branch a b) = Branch (fmap f a) (fmap f b)

和定义:

addOne' = fmap (+1)

我们可以提出其他递归方案，例如代数数据类型的变形(或折叠)。使用变形法，我们可以这样写:

addOne'' = cata go where
           go (Leaf a) = Leaf (a + 1)
           go (Branch a b) = Branch a b

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。