Keep top level comments as only solutions, if you want to say something other than a solution put it in a new post. (replies to comments can be whatever)
You can send code in code blocks by using three backticks, the code, and then three backticks or use something such as https://topaz.github.io/paste/ if you prefer sending it through a URL
Is there a leaderboard for the community?: We have a programming.dev leaderboard with the info on how to join in this post: https://programming.dev/post/6631465
First part is solved by making a regex of the available towels, like ^(r|wr|bg|bwu|rb|gb|br)*$ for the example. If a design matches it, then it can be made. This didn't work for the second part, which is done using recursion and memoization instead. Again, it was quite surprising to see such a high solution number. 32 bits were not enough (thanks, debug mode overflow detection).
Solution
use regex::Regex;
use rustc_hash::FxHashMap;
fn parse(input: &str) -> (Vec<&str>, Vec<&str>) {
let (towels, designs) = input.split_once("\n\n").unwrap();
(towels.split(", ").collect(), designs.lines().collect())
}
fn part1(input: String) {
let (towels, designs) = parse(&input);
let pat = format!("^({})*$", towels.join("|"));
let re = Regex::new(&pat).unwrap();
let count = designs.iter().filter(|d| re.is_match(d)).count();
println!("{count}");
}
fn n_arrangements<'a>(
design: &'a str,
towels: &[&str],
cache: &mut FxHashMap<&'a str, u64>,
) -> u64 {
if design.is_empty() {
return 1;
}
if let Some(n) = cache.get(design) {
return *n;
}
let n = towels
.iter()
.filter(|t| design.starts_with(*t))
.map(|t| n_arrangements(&design[t.len()..], towels, cache))
.sum();
cache.insert(design, n);
n
}
fn part2(input: String) {
let (towels, designs) = parse(&input);
let sum: u64 = designs
.iter()
.map(|d| n_arrangements(d, &towels, &mut FxHashMap::default()))
.sum();
println!("{sum}");
}
util::aoc_main!();
The 3ms are for part 1 only, part 2 takes around 27ms. But I see that our approaches there are very similar. One difference that might make an impact is that you copy the substrings for inserting into the hashmap into Strings.
Removing the string copy with the length->count array from @sjmulder saved me 20ms, so not super significant. I'll have to play the the profiler and see what I am doing wrong.
I think your approach looks a lot more Rust-like, which I like. Part 1 in 4 lines is very nice.