this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
41 points (97.7% liked)
Advent Of Code
885 readers
154 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 2024
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 | 18 | 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. [2024 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nim
I got stuck on part 2 trying to check everything inside a single loop, which kept getting more ugly. So then I switched to just deleting one item at a time and re-checking the record.
Reworked it after first finding the solution to compress the code a bit, though the range iterators don't really help with readability.
I did learn about the
sugar
import, which I used to make the sequence duplication more compact:record.dup(delete(it)
.Cool to see another solution in Nim here =)
That's smart. I haven't thought of using iterators to loop over indexes (except in a
for loop
).Yeah I've thought of simple ways to do this and found none. And looking at the input - it's too easy to bruteforce, especially in compiled lang like Nim.