What is the design smell, poor practice in recursion ? once I saw resharper suggesting improvements I quickly looked around on google. Saw numerous comments around re-factoring tail recursion to iterations and referring to it as a design smell.
public static void DebugOutput2(Exception ex) {
if (ex == null) {
return;
}
Debug.WriteLine(ex.Message);
if (ex.InnerException != null) {
DebugOutput2(ex.InnerException);
}
}
// WAS REFACTORED TO
public static void DebugOutput(Exception ex) {
if (ex == null) {
return;
}
while (true) {
Debug.WriteLine(ex.Message);
if (ex.InnerException != null) {
ex = ex.InnerException;
continue;
}
break;
}
}
EDIT: BAsed on C# compiler treatment comment. Looks like it is recursive now
Target .net 4.5 . C# 5.0
ILDASM Output for tail recursion version: Shows recursive call and not iteration
.method public hidebysig static void DebugOutput(class [mscorlib]System.Exception ex) cil managed
{
// Code size 54 (0x36)
.maxstack 2
.locals init ([0] bool CS$4$0000)
IL_0000: nop
IL_0001: ldarg.0
IL_0002: ldnull
IL_0003: ceq
IL_0005: ldc.i4.0
IL_0006: ceq
IL_0008: stloc.0
IL_0009: ldloc.0
IL_000a: brtrue.s IL_000e
IL_000c: br.s IL_0035
IL_000e: ldarg.0
IL_000f: callvirt instance string [mscorlib]System.Exception::get_Message()
IL_0014: call void [System]System.Diagnostics.Debug::WriteLine(string)
IL_0019: nop
IL_001a: ldarg.0
IL_001b: callvirt instance class [mscorlib]System.Exception [mscorlib]System.Exception::get_InnerException()
IL_0020: ldnull
IL_0021: ceq
IL_0023: stloc.0
IL_0024: ldloc.0
IL_0025: brtrue.s IL_0035
IL_0027: nop
IL_0028: ldarg.0
IL_0029: callvirt instance class [mscorlib]System.Exception [mscorlib]System.Exception::get_InnerException()
IL_002e: call void ca1.Program::DebugOutput(class [mscorlib]System.Exception)
IL_0033: nop
IL_0034: nop
IL_0035: ret
} // end of method Program::DebugOutput
The simplicity of recursion comes at the cost of time and space efficiency. It is much slower than iteration due to the overhead of function calls and control shift from one function to another. It requires extra memory on the stack for each recursive call.
Tail call elimination reduces the space complexity of recursion from O(N) to O(1). As function call is eliminated, no new stack frames are created and the function is executed in constant memory space.
The tail recursion is better than non-tail recursion. As there is no task left after the recursive call, it will be easier for the compiler to optimize the code. When one function is called, its address is stored inside the stack. So if it is tail recursion, then storing addresses into stack is not needed.
Because people mistakenly care more about micro-optimizations than clear and readable code.
The recursion makes additional (recursive) function call, which also means a stack allocation, for every level (every object you handle).
Generally the iteration is better because it doesn't make that additional call/allocation.
Of course, the difference would be visible in case there are many objects to handle, which I suppose is not the case in your example. So for you it's not an issue and I guess the intention is to teach you a better practice in general.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With