c# - 为什么要使用迭代而不是尾递归？

Question

什么是设计味道，递归的糟糕实践？一旦我看到 resharper 建议改进，我就迅速在谷歌上四处寻找。看到许多关于将尾递归重构为迭代的评论，并将其称为设计气味。

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;
    }
}

编辑:基于 C# 编译器处理注释。现在看起来是递归的
目标.net 4.5。 C# 5.0

尾递归版本的 ILDASM 输出:显示递归调用而不是迭代

.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

Answer 1

因为人们错误地更关心微优化而不是清晰易读的代码。