The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

The second time i propose you use just one bit per node to mark them as already processed. Then you don't need such a loop, just a single test. (std::vector<bool> stores elements in packed bits.)
But make sure you do this before you finally refactor this bullshit. Because if you refactor first, you would need to make the change only one times. That's no fun and nobody would complain.
So make sure you continue to improve your algorithm for weeks each time 8 times, otherwise you would learn path finding probably in a single day like all those other folks - which would be boring.

(I hope there aro no typos again in my post, but hey… fixing them just 8 times - it just works.)

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

Can't stop trying to decypher your code. Seems you have nested whiles. So time complexity of O(n^2) ???
Take a look at my code again. It is slow too, but see it never takes more iterations than the number of nodes.
You should just copy paste and move on.

JoeJ said:
Slowest path finding algorithm i've ever seen

I`m not concerned about speed. The algorithm doesn`t have to be a masterpiece.

Calin said:
I`m not concerned about speed.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming. So why not choose another hobby. Playing the guitar is cool. Only six strings but still cool.

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming

I passed 99% of a Law colledge, I don`t have a math/cs backround (other than hobby programming as a kid)

Calin said:

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming

I passed 99% of a Law colledge, I don`t have a math/cs backround (other than hobby programming as a kid)

Same for me, just i had no college. Kind of art school. No math at all. Never learned trig or solving a system of two simple linear equations. So having no background is no excuse. You refuse to learn. You want to do things ‘from scratch’ because you are not willing to learn from others.
This way you'll never get anywhere. It is too much - you can not reinvent it all, especially if you already fail so badly on understanding a 20 lines of code algorithm. You may just waste your time.
You say you can not learn from papers because you don't know the people behind them. But the truth is: You also could not learn if you knew them. This thread proofs that. You never listen, you never learn, you are doomed to remain stuck. So you are either happy with very simple retro arcade games at most, or you consider to give up and focus on something else. That's my impression so far. Ofc. i could be wrong.

JoeJ said:

Calin said:

You are not concerned about anything that is related to programming

I passed 99% of a Law colledge, I don`t have a math/cs backround (other than hobby programming as a kid)

Same for me, just i had no college. Kind of art school. No math at all. Never learned trig or solving a system of two simple linear equations. So having no background is no excuse. You refuse to learn. You want to do things ‘from scratch’ because you are not willing to learn from others.
This way you'll never get anywhere. It is too much - you can not reinvent it all, especially if you already fail so badly on understanding a 20 lines of code algorithm. You may just waste your time.
You say you can not learn from papers because you don't know the people behind them. But the truth is: You also could not learn if you knew them. This thread proofs that. You never listen, you never learn, you are doomed to remain stuck. So you are either happy with very simple retro arcade games at most, or you consider to give up and focus on something else. That's my impression so far. Ofc. i could be wrong.

No, thats totally spot on. But you are still just as responsible for his behaviour as he is. Why? Because you keep trying to help/teach him, even though he has proven time and time again that he doesn't care to learn. So just leave him be. Stop answering his questions, as he doesn't want to hear the answers. Or, if that seems a bit to rough, answer his question but do not engage in a debate when he tells you he's doing something else. If you tell him timeGetTime is not is a horrible solution but he still wants to use it, so be it. You cannot change his mind, his application will end up being horrible, but who cares? He for sure doesn't, so neigther should you.

EDIT: “You” is directed at anyone who engages in those ridicolous 10-page threads that pop up every other day.

You want to do things ‘from scratch’ because you are not willing to learn from others.

Going stray of the beaten path can actually lead to something good sooner or later.

Juliean said:
No, thats totally spot on. But you are still just as responsible for his behaviour as he is. Why? Because you keep trying to help/teach him, even though he has proven time and time again that he doesn't care to learn. So just leave him be. Stop answering his questions, as he doesn't want to hear the answers.

I know.

But i don't know why the hell i can't stop to attend. Either because i just wanna argue, or i want to help in another way than asked for. Probably both.

I can't be helped. I'm doomed and lost myself : )

Calin said:
Going stray of the beaten path can actually lead to something good sooner or later.

Yes. If one is a genius, or has a lot of luck.

But you will never get there. Because you will be busy until end of life with replicating solutions to problems we already know (in the better case). At the time you are equipped with enough knowledge to tackle the open problems, you'll be already dead.
So far your custom path finding algorithm is total crap. I would fire you from job, i would throw you out of school.

Path finding is not an open problem. Focus on travelling salesman if you hope for something new :D

Calin said:
Going stray of the beaten path can actually lead to something good sooner or later.

Yeah, and if I were to punch you in the face it might lead to the hospital discovering a stage-I brain tumor that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Do I go around punching people in the face claiming I just want to prevent them from getting cancer now? Because that really sounds like fun!

Also, please stop deflecting criticism with generic fortune-cookie sayings. If you cannot answer an argument with a meaningful on-topic statement, changes are you are in the wrong.

I know.

But i don't know why the hell i can't stop to attend. Either because i just wanna argue, or i want to help in another way than asked for. Probably both.

I can't be helped. I'm doomed and lost myself : )

Well, I'd like to think that the arguing at least prevents some other poor soul stumbling across those threads and prevent them from making the same mistakes Calin is making. So keep on fighting the good fight then ?