# | User | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 3843 |
2 | jiangly | 3705 |
3 | Benq | 3628 |
4 | orzdevinwang | 3571 |
5 | Geothermal | 3569 |
5 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
7 | jqdai0815 | 3530 |
8 | ecnerwala | 3499 |
9 | gyh20 | 3447 |
10 | Rebelz | 3409 |
# | User | Contrib. |
---|---|---|
1 | maomao90 | 171 |
2 | awoo | 164 |
3 | adamant | 162 |
4 | TheScrasse | 159 |
5 | maroonrk | 154 |
5 | nor | 154 |
7 | -is-this-fft- | 152 |
8 | Petr | 147 |
9 | orz | 145 |
10 | pajenegod | 144 |
Name |
---|
I think your recursion calls itself too much if you do it all in one go -
depee(10000000)
would calldepee(9999999)
which callsdepee(9999998)
...depee(0)
, and the program consumes alot of memory to keep track of all this recursion. Your second submission avoids this issue. Whendepee(n)
is called, it callsdepee(n-1)
which was previously solved, and thus fewer recursive calls need to be kept track of at a time.a great example why to use bottom-up if can(which we can here)
Thanks for your explanation, I get it now.