Hi seraph776! Your solution appears to be quite creative, but regrettably, it is SLOWER and INEFFICIENT.

The time complexity of your function is O(n^2), while mine is O(n). With that being said, yours is SLOWER.

Let's see if is WAY SLOWER. Don't believe me, just watch, come on!

Both functions used the same text for the tests, and the text was generated randomly using:

def generate_random_string():
    return ''.join(random.choice(string.ascii_letters + string.digits) for _ in range(1000))

Besides, as you can see, YOUR FUNCTION DOES NOT SUPPORT LONG STRING CHAINS.

Why?

Python has a limit on the depth of recursion to prevent a stack overflow. Since the size of the call stack is finite, a program or a function that recurses too deeply can exhaust the stack. In Python, the maximum depth of recursion is about 1000 layers for most systems.

Happy to help you, nice try! 😁

Hmph, I think my version is way faster than yours! 😁

Thx snoopythekid! Glad you liked it! This is an old debate; I simply used acquired knowledge.

For a comparatively large list, under time constraints, it seems that the reversed() function performs faster than the slicing method. This is because reversed() just returns an iterator that iterates the original list in reverse order, without copying anything whereas slicing creates an entirely new list, copying every element from the original list. For a list with 10^6 Values, the reversed() performs almost 20,000 better than the slicing method. If there is a need to store the reverse copy of data then slicing can be used but if one only wants to iterate the list in reverse manner, reversed() is definitely the better option.