A modern programming language that makes developers happier.

kotlinlang

Can Someone please help me with this question...?
<https://www.hackerrank.com/challenges/between-two-sets/forum|https://www.hackerrank.com/challenges/between-two-sets/forum>

My answer fails two test cases , becuz pf timeout...:disappointed_relieved: 
Answer:
<https://justpaste.it/50bns|https://justpaste.it/50bns>

Thanks in advance....

just looking at your code : that's pretty far from idiomatic kotlin. It looks like a frustrated C programmer :grin:

here is my solution to the problem. it's more idiomatic kotlin and passes all the test cases :
<https://pl.kotl.in/9cjB7l5k4>

your checking way to many numbers. You know the #s your looking for have to be a multiple of the largest # in the a list. So increment by that instead of 1. cut out a lot of divisions.

That's a brilliant code, <@UD8HMUUKW>
Is `val lrgFac = b.fold(Int.MAX_VALUE) {acc,i-&gt; Math.min(acc,i)}` some form of the `Array.minXXX` method? And `val maxA = a.reduce { acc, i -&gt;  Math.max(acc,i)}` is some form of `Array.maxXXX`?
IMO, the `findNumbers` function still refers to `lrgFac` and `b` outside of that function which makes it a little bit difficult to read.
Thank you very much for sharing your code. I learned a lot from it.

<@U014UK7CNNP> thanks. The HackerRank enviroment is strange. I'm not sure what version of kotlin they run, and it looks like the restrict the APIs you can use. I couldn't figure out which max/min was on there version of list (kotlin has changed the max/min api a few times over various version). so I just did it w/  fold / reduce... but yeah I would rather use some version of maxXXX.
I use `tailrec fun()` instead of while loops. If you think about it like that it becomes easier to read. Yeah, it's using var/val's out side the function, like a `while()` loop would.

<@U014UK7CNNP> using a `while()` loop means using a var. w/ `tailrec` everything is all val. Also the `tailrec` tells the compiler more about what's happening. In combo w/ only vals, in theory the compiler should be better able to optomize the loop (or at the least not have to check for normal while() for() edge cases). But I've never actually tested to see if that's true. The one times I did look the compiled byte code was very similar.  So mostly that's just a story I tell myself :slightly_smiling_face:
But I do like it better aesthetically. having no vars makes me happy for some reason.