this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
23 points (96.0% 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 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Rust
I went with solving the quadratic equation, so part 2 was just a trivial change in parsing. It was a bit janky to find the integer that is strictly larger than a floating point number, but it all worked out.
(number+1).floor()does the trickOh yeah, that's clever. I'll remember that when it comes up again.
In Python when using numpy to find the roots, sometimes you get a numeric artifact like 30.99999999999, which breaks this. Make sure to limit the significant digits to a sane amount like 5 with rounding to prevent that.
I wanted to try the easy approach first and see how slow it was. Didn't even take a second for part 2. So I just skipped the mathematical solution entirely.