Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!

Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.

Post History

75%
+4 −0
Q&A How do I filter an array in C?

First a meta note. Code golf isn't a great way to learn a language. It explicitly optimizes for something that generally isn't valuable (fewer bytes of source code) typically at the expense of aspe...

posted 3y ago by Derek Elkins‭

Answer
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Derek Elkins‭ · 2021-08-29T06:51:11Z (over 3 years ago)
First a meta note. Code golf isn't a great way to learn a language. It explicitly optimizes for something that generally isn't valuable (fewer bytes of source code) typically at the expense of aspects that are valuable (idiomatic code, readability, efficiency, effectiveness).

On a less meta note, even for the purposes of code golf, trying to copy a solution from another, quite different, language line by line doesn't really make sense. JavaScript is a dynamically typed language with first-class functions and garbage collection. C is a statically typed language that lacks first-class functions and manages memory manually. In the single line that computes `minorMatrix`, the JavaScript code has two anonymous functions and performs 3+matrix.length allocations (1 for the `filter`, 1 for the `map`, 1 each for the anonymous functions, and 1 each for each call to `slice`). There are even more implicit or hidden allocations. In C, while certainly not unheard of, using function pointers is not an every-other-line kind of thing like it is in many higher-order languages including JavaScript. Similarly, memory allocation is often minimized because it can be expensive, often you want to use custom allocators, but probably mostly because it's error-prone and awkward to keep track of when to free that memory. A "one-to-one" translation of the JavaScript to C code is likely to be non-idiomatic, inefficient, verbose, and error-prone.

On an even less meta note, the algorithm used to compute the determinant is *extremely* bad from a performance perspective. It has O(n!) time complexity. This is *worse than exponential*! For the purposes of code golf this arguably isn't a problem, nevertheless the more efficient O(n^3) algorithm similar to Gaussian elimination, in addition to being dramatically more efficient, is likely more idiomatic and easier to golf. Nevertheless, below I'll stick with the Laplace expansion algorithm.

As you've started to gather, C doesn't include a filter function in its standard library. C has few standard library functions that take function pointers, and, in this case, a fully general purpose filter function is likely to take more code to *call* than it would be to just inline the implementation, while also being significantly less efficient or convenient. For example, here's a version of a relatively general-purpose filter function, but even then it only works for `double` arrays:

```c
size_t filter(double *input, size_t len, bool (*predicate)(void *, double, int), void *env, double *output) {
    size_t outputLen = 0;
    for(size_t i = 0; i < len; ++i) {
        if(predicate(env, input[i], i)) {
            output[outputLen++] = input[i];
        }
    }
    return outputLen;
}
```

In most cases, simply inlining the `for`-loop would lead to more compact, more readable, and more efficient code.

For your particular use-case, though, it's much better to step back and think about what the code as a whole is trying to accomplish. The `minorMatrix` computation, for the n = 3 case, takes a matrix like
```
[ a b c ]
[ d e f ]
[ g h i ]
```
and produces three 2x2 matrices like the following:
```
[ _ _ _ ]    [ _ b c ]    [ _ b c ]
[ _ e f ]    [ _ _ _ ]    [ _ e f ]
[ _ h i ]    [ _ h i ]    [ _ _ _ ]
```
where the `_`s represent the entries omitted from the original matrix. The JavaScript code accomplishes this by literally creating these 2x2 matrices, but it should be clear that there's no reason to allocate anything. If we keep track of which rows and columns have been omitted, we can just iterate over the rows and columns of the original matrix, skipping the omitted ones. This is particularly easy for the columns, as we are always just omitting the first k columns, so we just need to keep track of a single column offset. The rows are more complicated because any pattern of rows could be omitted. Nevertheless, this can easily be tracked by a bit array. With this approach the `filter` in the JavaScript code becomes simply setting (and later resetting) a bit in an array.

```c
double laplace_det_helper(double **matrix, size_t n, size_t offset, bool *omitted_rows) {                         
    if (n == offset) {                                                                                        
        return 1.0;                                                                                               
    }                                                                                                             
    double sum = 0.0;                                                                                             
    double s = 1;                                                                                                 
    for (size_t row_index = 0; row_index < n; ++row_index) {                                                      
        if (omitted_rows[row_index]) continue;                                                                    
        omitted_rows[row_index] = true;                                                                           
        sum += s * matrix[row_index][offset] * laplace_det_helper(matrix, n, offset+1, omitted_rows);             
        omitted_rows[row_index] = false;                                                                          
        s *= -1;                                                                                                  
    }                                                                                                             
    return sum;                                                                                                   
}                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                  
double laplace_det(double **square_matrix, size_t n) {                                                            
    // Should check for an allocation failure but...                                                              
    bool *omitted_rows = (bool *)malloc(sizeof(bool) * n);                                                        
    for (size_t i = 0; i < n; ++i) {                                                                              
        omitted_rows[i] = false;                                                                                  
    }                                                                                                             
    double result = laplace_det_helper(square_matrix, n, 0, omitted_rows);                                        
    free(omitted_rows);                                                                                           
    return result;                                                                                                
}

```