A difference between your JavaScript and C++ code samples is: the C++ function has just two parameters instead of 3, the map object being managed as a global entity.
In some sense, having just 2 parameters is “The Right Thing”. The unordered map is about some internal necessity of the algorithm. Why should user code have to know about that ?
And should you some day decide to use instead an ordered map or a set or a bit vector, why should that force user code to change the list of header files it has to #include ?
So having just 2 parameters is fine, however managing the map as an external global object is not that good. In C++ programming, global objects are generally frowned upon. In your case, it puts an undue burden on user code, such as having to reset the map object between two calls to canSum()
? Such a precaution is all too easily forgotten.
To solve the problem, you could use two C++ functions: an external one, and the internal one.
The external one takes care (internally) of the life cycle of the map object. The internal one just passes a pointer to the map object around.
C++ code for the internal function:
#include <vector>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <iostream>
using MyMapType = std::unordered_map<int, bool>; // ad hoc map type
using std::vector;
bool canSumWithMap(int goal, const vector<int>& vec, MyMapType& myMap)
{
if (goal < 0) return false;
if (goal == 0) return true;
if (myMap[goal])
return myMap[goal];
for (auto& ell : vec)
{
if (canSumWithMap(goal-ell, vec, myMap))
{
myMap.insert({goal, true});
return true;
}
}
myMap.insert({goal, false});
return false;
}
Please note that both the map and the vector are passed by reference, with a '&' character, in order to avoid unnecessary copying during function calls.
C++ code for the external function, plus main program:
bool canSum(int goal, const vector<int>& vec)
{
MyMapType myMap; // new map object initialized as empty
bool rc = canSumWithMap(goal, vec, myMap);
return rc;
// myMap automagically deallocated here
}
using std::cout;
using std::endl;
int main()
{
cout << std::boolalpha; // want to print true or false rather than 0 or 1
cout << canSum(7, {2,3}) << endl;
cout << canSum(7, {5,3,4,7}) << endl;
cout << canSum(7, {2,4}) << endl; // no, can only do multiples of 2
cout << canSum(8, {2,3,5}) << endl;
cout << canSum(300, {7,14}) << endl; // no, can only do multiples of 7
return 0;
}
The above code runs successfully on my semi-vintage Intel x86-64 machine in 50 seconds, GNU C++ v10.2, with -O2 option.
Program output:
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 10.2.1 20201125 (Red Hat 10.2.1-9)
Copyright ? 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
...
$
$ g++ -O2 q66720598.cpp -o q66720598.x
$ time q66720598.x
true
true
false
true
false
real 0m49,986s
user 0m49,841s
sys 0m0,003s
$
Performance measurements:
On my machine, your JavaScript codes runs in 19 seconds. And C++ with unordered maps takes 50 seconds, which is a bit disappointing.
Switching from unordered maps to plain (ordered) maps decreases the C++ time to 36 seconds, that's still slower than JavaScript.
It takes a bit vector, defined like this:
std::vector<bool> myMap(goal+1, false);
to restore proper hierarchy :-) and make C++ 3 times faster than JavaScript, with a wall time of only 6 seconds.
So this is one of those situations where map objects, though functionally quite powerful and versatile, can be way slower than some ad hoc data structure.