| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3792 |
| 2 | VivaciousAubergine | 3647 |
| 3 | Kevin114514 | 3603 |
| 4 | jiangly | 3583 |
| 5 | turmax | 3559 |
| 6 | tourist | 3541 |
| 7 | strapple | 3515 |
| 8 | ksun48 | 3461 |
| 9 | dXqwq | 3436 |
| 10 | Otomachi_Una | 3413 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 157 |
| 2 | adamant | 153 |
| 3 | Um_nik | 147 |
| 3 | Proof_by_QED | 147 |
| 5 | Dominater069 | 145 |
| 6 | errorgorn | 142 |
| 7 | cry | 139 |
| 8 | YuukiS | 135 |
| 9 | TheScrasse | 134 |
| 10 | chromate00 | 133 |
| 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.