Clojurians Log v2

My day 2. Based on other solutions, I need to learn to use for a bit better, but happy overall. https://github.com/SNordlinger/advent2019/blob/master/2/clj/src/comp.clj

My day AOC (up to day2) : https://repl.it/@ben_w_trent/aoc2019 Lessons learned: (for [x (range 99) y (range 99)] [x y]) Did not know about for for generating sequences 😄. I was doing some super complex combinatorics and thought that there HAD to be a better way. Glad there is

Also beware range is exclusive upper bound but I think the problem calls for inclusive range

day 2 was a bit simpler since there was only multiplication and addition involved. and they chose quite easy numbers to solve it

Ah, cool. Well, my solution was under 99 :).

Same 😌

part 2 is a particularly nice way to add core.logic as well

order of operations tripped me up at the end

#lisplyfe

I’ve brain-dumped all order of operations rules

(ns advent.day02.day02
  (:require [clojure.math.combinatorics :as combo]))

(def blah (combo/selections (range 100) 2))

one thing that came up in my brute force search was it wasn’t clear what the best way to break from the search was. I ended up using some, but is there a better way to basically do:

for i in coll:
  if i == search_item:
    return i

thus avoiding searching the rest of the collection?

I’ve read the docs a bunch of times and :when and :while still confuse me for for

reduced can exit early from a reduction

Ooh, good idea re: core.logic. I'll have to try it, definitely cleaner than for ...

@risinglight one thing you can take advantage of is the fact that for is lazy

So instead of “breaking” from a for loop, you instead can read each element from the sequence it produces until you get your result

usually if i want to break i’d reach for loop/recur, or as mentioned reduce/reduced

ugh I can’t remove the preview on mobile

github .com/Lokeh/advent-2019/blob/master/day2.org#part-2 (pasting it again so that Slack won’t show the rich preview... which I can’t delete on mobile)

reduced is also fine but if your data can be reasonably done using for, then take-while is usually a better answer than turning to reduce and reduced

take-while seems like the wrong thing for what is essentially a find of a single item. some I guess is good enough, I was just annoyed I had to modify the pred to rerun the found value https://github.com/KennyMonster/aoc_2019/blob/737ec52c74fea4dc42f856b6b69cb73588e016ba/src/day_2.clj#L66

Would be nice to have the predicate just be a predicate in this particular case

And… we’re off!

it is lazy infinite positive quarter of a xy plane. Sweet, but yeah, ranges are known, so for is more readable and sufficient here

@alex.lee.jackson aoc is not a good way to learn clojure. Maybe the first puzzle of each day is, but most of the 2nd ones steer you towards the loop recur pretty consistently, if you don't want to wait for results forever.

(get [] 1)
=> nil
(nth [] 1)
Execution error (IndexOutOfBoundsException) 
([] 1)
Execution error (IndexOutOfBoundsException) 

Day 3 done. This has escalated.

just a bit

can't even hear CPU fan noises on take-while :kappa:

I wasn't sure if those values where necessarily bounded. But yeah.

loop recur can be decomplected into state & reducing function. I'm curious if you prefer loop recur over a sequential approach. or is it only desireable on 2nd ones for performance reason?

Done. Whew. Thank goodness part2 was a small increment if you chose the right grid representation.

it ends up being the same amount of eager code, same early termination, a bunch of state "variables", but reduce is 2 things, 1 of which now has a very hairy fn signature and loads of destructuring

besides, most reduces are implemented via loop recur under the hood, so might as well just skip the middle man (especially in context of average aoc part 2 puzzle)

https://github.com/armstnp/advent-of-code-2019/blob/master/src/advent_of_code_2019/day3.clj http://quil.info/sketches/show/3045c99a9e8afbecc5e229977f6a828c0747e3073eb54b45111cd5e3717aa7db Using line segments instead of points made for easier viz, but harder solving. Heh.

Whoops, left my reminder comment at the top

part2 was actually easier today

Probably because I am storing separate points on the line

:when (not (and (= (first segment-1) [0 0])
                (= (first segment-2) [0 0])))]

besides, how do you know that [0 0] is only first in segment? and that lines do not go through [0 0] ever again

The problem statement explicitly says to ignore it. Otherwise, definitely just an assumption. 🙂

My solution for today's part2 is sloow: "Elapsed time: 7919.040046 msecs" I'm getting flashbacks from last year when my part2 solutions were too inefficient to compute in time 😓

yeah, it says ignore [0 0], but I mean, you assume it appears only on segment start, and no segment ends at [0 0]

so segment [[0 -2] [0 -1] [0 0]] might leak [0 0] into collisions set

stick transient in there :kappa:

or rather rethink your datastructures

mine takes 75ms with maps

did you go with some lists/vectors?

yes, I went with a vector of all the coordinates for a line, then turned it into a set for running intersection

same here and same perf

finally, day3 done https://github.com/genmeblog/advent-of-code-2019/blob/master/src/advent_of_code_2019/day03.clj

Would you mind sharing your solution? I'm curious how it looks with maps.

I am doing everything on my phone this year, would be much more difficult with other other languages. But works great with clojure and jupyter

Interesting (positive) side effects, I make more granular functions and think more before starting to type.

Hardcore coding 🙂

Holiday time waster 🙂

Let's see how long I can keep it up

Writing anything on the phone (even simple messages) is so inconvenient that I can't even imagine editing the code.

The trick is to type less (so think first) and a good soft keyboard helps.

For sure. The idea to think more before typing is always beneficial

2019 day 3 is similar to 2016 day 1. Just absolute moves instead of relative turns. I wound up putting that code into a aoc.grid library.

Got the first part done — running 500-700 ms. Traded the leaderboard points for sleep. Will finish part 2 later today..

It might; one of the keys to AoC is figuring out which assumptions you can make safely, sometimes the hard way. Sometimes your solution only works for your input, just because it doesn't challenge that particular assumption. The primary reason I expect there's no [0 0] collision is that it would be a 'trivial solution' to part 1, too easily accidentally guessed for a quick leaderboard time, even if by a fraction of people; that's just not how he operates.

haha, already planning ahead for 2020! 🙂

https://gist.github.com/yenda/fcc8ae88ef5318b966b450bc7ed7802b

Just finished day 3. This one was tedious. Gonna look at other solutions. I modeled my solution based on lines (two points) and intersections (points). Perhaps it may have been easier to build a grid.

https://github.com/transducer/adventofcode/blob/master/src/adventofcode/2019/day3.clj not a masterpiece - don’t see how to improve the clojure or the performance. NOTE: peek instead of last to get last element of a vector led to running twice as fast.

Nice solution. But I see you were lucky. Intersections can have negative coordinates and you should sum absolute values rather than filtering negative results (see manhattan distance definition).

Aha so sum absolute values and remove zero?

Thanks 🙂

https://github.com/Average-user/adventofcode-clj-2019/blob/master/src/adventofcode_clj_2019/day03.clj

did you try using clojure.set/intersection and measure the performance? curious.