The problem here is the signature of setLocation
. It's stringly typed.
To elaborate: Why would it expect String
? A String
represents any kind of textual data. It can potentially be anything but a valid location.
In fact, this poses a question: what is a location? How do I know without looking into your code? If it were a URL
than I would know a lot more about what this method expects.
Maybe it would make more sense for it to be a custom class Location
. Ok, I wouldn't know at first, what that is, but at some point (probably before writing this.configuration.getLocation()
I would take a minute to figure out what it is this method returns).
Granted, in both cases I need to look some place else to understand, what is expected. However in the latter case, if I understand, what a Location
is, I can use your API, in the former case, if I understand, what a String
is (which can be expected), I still don't know what your API expects.
In the unlikely scenario, that a location is any kind of textual data I would reinterpret this to any kind of data, that has a textual representation. Given the fact, that Object
has a toString
method, you could go with that, although this demands quite a leap of faith from the clients of your code.
Also you should consider, that this is Java you're talking about, which has very few features by design. That's what's forcing you to actually call the toString
at the end.
If you take C# for example, which is also statically typed, then you would actually be able to omit that call by defining behavior for an implicit cast.
In dynamically typed languages, such as Objective-C, you don't really need the conversion either, because as long as the value behaves like a string, everybody is happy.
One could argue, that the last call to toString
is less a call, than actually just noise generated by Java's demand for explicitness. You're calling a method, that any Java object has, therefore you do not actually encode any knowledge about a "distant unit" and thereby don't violate the Principle of Least Knowledge. There is no way, no matter what getLocation
returns, that it doesn't have a toString
method.
But please, do not use strings, unless they are really the most natural choice (or unless you're using a language, that doesn't even have enums ... been there).
Disclaimer: This answer does not answer the question that completely. But it's too long for a comment.
NP-hard? I believe, this problem could be NP-hard.
Consider a special case of the Knapsack problem:
Given a set of positive integers and a positive integer b, does there exist a subset of the set such that the sum of all integers in that subset equals b?
This sounds somewhat similar to our Countdown problem, and it seems to be much simpler. However, Knapsack (and this special case of Knapsack) is NP-hard (and NP-complete, of course).
I did not manage to use this for a proof that Countdown is NP-hard. I could not get rid of the division. Consider we have a thousand 2, and b = 7. This will never be solvable with Knapsack, but always (?) with Countdown, at least in all the ways I tried to transfer the problem.
Now, if Countdown really was NP-hard, we could deduce that there with very high probability is no algorithm that is significantly more efficient than brute-force trying all possibilities. (And if we should find such an algorithm, we will become very famous.)
No, I don't think there must be an efficient algorithm.
Heuristics. The Youtube video linked in the question has a nice example: The contestant found an exact answer 952 = ((100 + 6) * 3 * 75 - 50) / 25. That is completely against my intuition, I would never have tried it that way in the first time: Produce a very large number, then divide it and yield the result.
On the other, we humans feel that we do not need to try (arbitrary example) 50 * 75 * 100 / 2 / 3 / 7 to reach a three-digit-number. But computers do not feel anything, they simple calculate.
After all, if we implemented some heuristics, and this heuristics does not find an exact solution, we still will have to try all other solutions to make sure there really is none.
What the contestant in the Youtube video does is, I think, to very quickly check a large number of possibilities and to quickly discard those that will not (or likely will not) give a solution.
Conclusion. When implementing an algorithm, one could take care to strip equal calculations such as a / b / c = a / (b * c), but I think this is quite hard to do and I do not know whether this improves the runtime significantly.
Computers of course are faster than humans in checking a large number of possibilities. And nowadays, even smartphones are so fast they can solve this problem, I think, within a second by simply trying all possibilities. (I did not test this.) There are only six numbers, it would be different if there were e.g. 60 of them.
Best Answer
Here is a suggestion.
Create a parse tree. Reorder it so that the deepest part of the tree is to the left, and do this recursively.
Every "rising chain" in the parse tree does not need temporaries. Every time you encounter a node with children on both sides, you will need a temporary. If you process the whole tree, you can discover the maximum number of temporaries that you need at any given time.
I have not tried to show that this greedy solution is truly optimal, but it discovers the best answer in simple cases, and in all cases you'll come up with an answer with a limited number of temporaries.