After my previous post about the stack space, it appears that there is perception from the feedback that recursion is bad and we should avoid deep recursion. After writing a compiler, I know that the modern computer and compiler are complex enough and one cannot automatically assume that a hand crafted code would out-perform the compiler optimization. The only way is to do some prototype to find out.
So why recursive code may not perform as well? Compilers place frames on a stack. In additional to arguments and local variables, compiles also need to place frame and program pointers on the frame, resulting in overheads.
So why hand-crafted code may not performance as well? The stack used by a compiler is a simpler data structure and can grow and shrink cleanly. To replace recursion with out own stack, our stack is allocated in the heap that is far more complicated to manage. There could be overhead as well if the compiler needs to mark objects for garbage collection. Compiler also needs to worry about the memory fragmentation.
Then there is additional complexity: CPUs have registers and multiple levels of cache. Register access is a few times faster than in-CPU cache access and is a few 10s times than on-board memory access. So it is up to the OS and compiler to maximize the use of register and in-CPU cache.
For my particular problem, I did an experiment to rewrite my c# version of recursive code with a loop and stack approach. So here are the outcomes of the two approaches:
|Recursive call||Loop and Stack|
|Lines of code for the algorithm||17||46|
|Readability||Clean||Far more complex|
So at the end, I was able to achieve 3% better performance with other drawbacks. My message is never assuming your sophisticated approach would automatically work out better than a simpler approach with a modern computer and compiler. Gage carefully before committing to a more complex approach.