一位面试官最近问了我这样一个问题:给定三个布尔变量a、b和c，如果三个变量中至少有两个为真，则返回true。
我的解决方案如下:
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
if ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c)) {
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
他说这还可以进一步改进，但如何改进呢?
当前回答
我的第一个想法是
return (a||b)&&(b||c)
但为了便于阅读，我喜欢你们提出的a+b+c>=2的解决方案
其他回答
One thing I haven't seen others point out is that a standard thing to do in the "please write me some code" section of the job interview is to say "Could you improve that?" or "Are you completely happy with that" or "is that as optimized as possible?" when you say you are done. It's possible you heard "how would you improve that" as "this might be improved; how?". In this case changing the if(x) return true; else return false; idiom to just return x is an improvement - but be aware that there are times they just want to see how you react to the question. I have heard that some interviewers will insist there is a flaw in perfect code just to see how you cope with it.
当我看到这个问题时，我的第一个想法是:
int count=0;
if (a)
++count;
if (b)
++count;
if (c)
++count;
return count>=2;
在看了其他帖子后，我承认
return (a?1:0)+(b?1:0)+(c?1:0)>=2;
更优雅。我想知道相对运行时是什么。
不过，无论如何，我认为这种解决办法比那种解决办法要好得多
return a&b | b&c | a&c;
variety because is is more easily extensible. What if later we add a fourth variable that must be tested? What if the number of variables is determined at runtime, and we are passed an array of booleans of unknown size? A solution that depends on counting is much easier to extend than a solution that depends on listing every possible combination. Also, when listing all possible combinations, I suspect that it is much easier to make a mistake. Like try writing the code for "any 3 of 4" and make sure you neither miss any nor duplicate any. Now try it with "any 5 of 7".
这样读起来更好:
if (a) {
return b || c;
}
else {
return b && c;
}
为什么不逐字执行呢?：）
(a?1:0)+(b?1:0)+(c?1:0) >= 2
在C语言中，你可以写a+b+ C >= 2(或者!!a+!! !b+!! !C >= 2，非常安全)。
为了回应TofuBeer对java字节码的比较，这里有一个简单的性能测试:
class Main
{
static boolean majorityDEAD(boolean a,boolean b,boolean c)
{
return a;
}
static boolean majority1(boolean a,boolean b,boolean c)
{
return a&&b || b&&c || a&&c;
}
static boolean majority2(boolean a,boolean b,boolean c)
{
return a ? b||c : b&&c;
}
static boolean majority3(boolean a,boolean b,boolean c)
{
return a&b | b&c | c&a;
}
static boolean majority4(boolean a,boolean b,boolean c)
{
return (a?1:0)+(b?1:0)+(c?1:0) >= 2;
}
static int loop1(boolean[] data, int i, int sz1, int sz2)
{
int sum = 0;
for(int j=i;j<i+sz1;j++)
{
for(int k=j;k<j+sz2;k++)
{
sum += majority1(data[i], data[j], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority1(data[i], data[k], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority1(data[j], data[k], data[i])?1:0;
sum += majority1(data[j], data[i], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority1(data[k], data[i], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority1(data[k], data[j], data[i])?1:0;
}
}
return sum;
}
static int loop2(boolean[] data, int i, int sz1, int sz2)
{
int sum = 0;
for(int j=i;j<i+sz1;j++)
{
for(int k=j;k<j+sz2;k++)
{
sum += majority2(data[i], data[j], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority2(data[i], data[k], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority2(data[j], data[k], data[i])?1:0;
sum += majority2(data[j], data[i], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority2(data[k], data[i], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority2(data[k], data[j], data[i])?1:0;
}
}
return sum;
}
static int loop3(boolean[] data, int i, int sz1, int sz2)
{
int sum = 0;
for(int j=i;j<i+sz1;j++)
{
for(int k=j;k<j+sz2;k++)
{
sum += majority3(data[i], data[j], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority3(data[i], data[k], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority3(data[j], data[k], data[i])?1:0;
sum += majority3(data[j], data[i], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority3(data[k], data[i], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority3(data[k], data[j], data[i])?1:0;
}
}
return sum;
}
static int loop4(boolean[] data, int i, int sz1, int sz2)
{
int sum = 0;
for(int j=i;j<i+sz1;j++)
{
for(int k=j;k<j+sz2;k++)
{
sum += majority4(data[i], data[j], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority4(data[i], data[k], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority4(data[j], data[k], data[i])?1:0;
sum += majority4(data[j], data[i], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majority4(data[k], data[i], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majority4(data[k], data[j], data[i])?1:0;
}
}
return sum;
}
static int loopDEAD(boolean[] data, int i, int sz1, int sz2)
{
int sum = 0;
for(int j=i;j<i+sz1;j++)
{
for(int k=j;k<j+sz2;k++)
{
sum += majorityDEAD(data[i], data[j], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majorityDEAD(data[i], data[k], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majorityDEAD(data[j], data[k], data[i])?1:0;
sum += majorityDEAD(data[j], data[i], data[k])?1:0;
sum += majorityDEAD(data[k], data[i], data[j])?1:0;
sum += majorityDEAD(data[k], data[j], data[i])?1:0;
}
}
return sum;
}
static void work()
{
boolean [] data = new boolean [10000];
java.util.Random r = new java.util.Random(0);
for(int i=0;i<data.length;i++)
data[i] = r.nextInt(2) > 0;
long t0,t1,t2,t3,t4,tDEAD;
int sz1 = 100;
int sz2 = 100;
int sum = 0;
t0 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int i=0;i<data.length-sz1-sz2;i++)
sum += loop1(data, i, sz1, sz2);
t1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int i=0;i<data.length-sz1-sz2;i++)
sum += loop2(data, i, sz1, sz2);
t2 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int i=0;i<data.length-sz1-sz2;i++)
sum += loop3(data, i, sz1, sz2);
t3 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int i=0;i<data.length-sz1-sz2;i++)
sum += loop4(data, i, sz1, sz2);
t4 = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int i=0;i<data.length-sz1-sz2;i++)
sum += loopDEAD(data, i, sz1, sz2);
tDEAD = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("a&&b || b&&c || a&&c : " + (t1-t0) + " ms");
System.out.println(" a ? b||c : b&&c : " + (t2-t1) + " ms");
System.out.println(" a&b | b&c | c&a : " + (t3-t2) + " ms");
System.out.println(" a + b + c >= 2 : " + (t4-t3) + " ms");
System.out.println(" DEAD : " + (tDEAD-t4) + " ms");
System.out.println("sum: "+sum);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
while(true)
{
work();
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
这将在我的机器上打印以下内容(在Intel Core 2 + sun java 1.6.0_15-b03上运行Ubuntu，带有HotSpot Server VM (14.1-b02，混合模式):
第一次和第二次迭代:
a&&b || b&&c || a&&c : 1740 ms
a ? b||c : b&&c : 1690 ms
a&b | b&c | c&a : 835 ms
a + b + c >= 2 : 348 ms
DEAD : 169 ms
sum: 1472612418
后来迭代:
a&&b || b&&c || a&&c : 1638 ms
a ? b||c : b&&c : 1612 ms
a&b | b&c | c&a : 779 ms
a + b + c >= 2 : 905 ms
DEAD : 221 ms
我想知道，对于(a + b + c >= 2)情况，java虚拟机可以做什么来降低性能。
下面是如果我用-client VM开关运行java会发生什么:
a&&b || b&&c || a&&c : 4034 ms
a ? b||c : b&&c : 2215 ms
a&b | b&c | c&a : 1347 ms
a + b + c >= 2 : 6589 ms
DEAD : 1016 ms
神秘……
如果我在GNU Java解释器中运行它，它会变慢近100倍，但是a&&b || b&&c || a&&c版本胜出。
在运行OS X的最新代码中，豆腐啤酒的结果:
a&&b || b&&c || a&&c : 1358 ms
a ? b||c : b&&c : 1187 ms
a&b | b&c | c&a : 410 ms
a + b + c >= 2 : 602 ms
DEAD : 161 ms
Paul Wagland使用Mac Java 1.6.0_26-b03-383-11A511的结果
a&&b || b&&c || a&&c : 394 ms
a ? b||c : b&&c : 435 ms
a&b | b&c | c&a : 420 ms
a + b + c >= 2 : 640 ms
a ^ b ? c : a : 571 ms
a != b ? c : a : 487 ms
DEAD : 170 ms
三元运算符让人觉得很无聊，但它们也会令人困惑(使代码更难维护，从而增加了注入错误的可能性)。Jeff Attwood说得很好:
这是一个权衡取舍的完美例子 毫无意义的一次 写的时候节省了几十个 阅读时间理解惩罚——它 让我思考。
为了避免三元操作符，我创建了以下函数:
function atLeastTwoTrue($a, $b, $c) {
$count = 0;
if ($a) { $count++; }
if ($b) { $count++; }
if ($c) { $count++; }
if ($count >= 2) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
这个和其他解一样酷吗?不。这样更容易理解吗?是的。这是否会使代码更具可维护性、bug更少?是的。
