22
❄️ - 2023 DAY 10 SOLUTIONS -❄️
(programming.dev)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
22 points (95.8% liked)
Advent Of Code
736 readers
1 users here now
An unofficial home for the advent of code community on programming.dev!
Advent of Code is an annual Advent calendar of small programming puzzles for a variety of skill sets and skill levels that can be solved in any programming language you like.
AoC 2023
Solution Threads
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 |
Rules/Guidelines
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep all content related to advent of code in some way
- If what youre posting relates to a day, put in brackets the year and then day number in front of the post title (e.g. [2023 Day 10])
- When an event is running, keep solutions in the solution megathread to avoid the community getting spammed with posts
Relevant Communities
Relevant Links
Credits
Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient
console.log('Hello World')
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Maybe you are adding the same point multiple times to to_visit. I don't know ruby but couldn't see a check for visited points before adding, and to_visit appears to be an array instead of set, which can store the same point multiple times.
There's a
next if [...] to_visit.include?(off_p), and I also only visit points that haven't been flood filled yet (next unless %w[. I].include? val), so there shouldn't be any superfluous testing going on.Went back and did a quick test of thing, and yep, converting the to_visit array to a set pulls execution time down to ~600ms. But the code becomes much messier.
Going to move the mutation of the map down to the point where I pick a point for visitation instead, so I can re-use the check for already flooded tiles instead.