Talk:I'm a software engineer, get me out of here: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:::Explains a lot about our current situation. Perhaps the president needs opticians, not software engineers. Probably wouldn't make a difference, for a few dollars they'd be blind. Who can blame them given the president's example?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
:::Explains a lot about our current situation. Perhaps the president needs opticians, not software engineers. Probably wouldn't make a difference, for a few dollars they'd be blind. Who can blame them given the president's example?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
::The edges are not weighted (they all cost 1 day), so Dijkstra is an unnecessary overhead compared to breadth-first, albeit the relatively small one of maintaining and retrieving the lowest-cost node next (in my code the "next" variable only ever holds {cost}{cost+1}). Perhaps if the numbers on the map, instead of some magical "teleport" number were a terrain difficulty, with 1 being "straight fast motorways" and 9 being "dense undergrowth, steep difficult climbs, boggy marshes, minefields, and similar obstacles", so to move 1 square costs (this+dest) days travel, then that might justify using Dijkstra. It would of course mean there are no unreachable cells. |
::The edges are not weighted (they all cost 1 day), so Dijkstra is an unnecessary overhead compared to breadth-first, albeit the relatively small one of maintaining and retrieving the lowest-cost node next (in my code the "next" variable only ever holds {cost}{cost+1}). Perhaps if the numbers on the map, instead of some magical "teleport" number were a terrain difficulty, with 1 being "straight fast motorways" and 9 being "dense undergrowth, steep difficult climbs, boggy marshes, minefields, and similar obstacles", so to move 1 square costs (this+dest) days travel, then that might justify using Dijkstra. It would of course mean there are no unreachable cells. |
||
:::Sounds good, two examples sometimes better than one. Do you have one in mind?--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::As it stands, Part 2 can be completed with a simple breadth-first search (or two), calculating at most 820 routes, whereas using Floyd-Warshall creates 170,156 routes. |
::As it stands, Part 2 can be completed with a simple breadth-first search (or two), calculating at most 820 routes, whereas using Floyd-Warshall creates 170,156 routes. When you say "tried here one sees the difference", did you mean a large negative one? |
||
:::At the briefing it was "concluded that you need to know the shortest route from each cell to every other cell". The commanders are not going to tell you where their troops are or where they want them. The two routes are just examples, a database with all routes is required.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::When you say "tried here one sees the difference", did you mean a large negative one? |
|||
::You could justify Floyd by asking for the maximum shortest route between any two points, so I've added that to the task and done just that. |
::You could justify Floyd by asking for the maximum shortest route between any two points, so I've added that to the task and done just that. |
||
:::Good for you. An improvement.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
:::Good for you. An improvement.--[[User:Nigel Galloway|Nigel Galloway]] ([[User talk:Nigel Galloway|talk]]) 13:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC) |
||