| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3659 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 4 | turmax | 3450 |
| 5 | tourist | 3382 |
| 6 | strapple | 3360 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3354 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3348 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3312 |
| 10 | idontwannadothis…e | 3191 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 155 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 149 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 145 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | BledDest | 136 |
| 8 | adamant | 134 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 132 |
| 10 | cry | 130 |
| 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.