oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow

oh no i solve it in the most stupid way

Best performance

Note to self:
- Review this later.

First, you should never claim something is faster without actually benchmarking it. Python has many hidden optimizations in built-in functions.

Second, I guess my solution would be faster in most cases because any stops at the first True, and all stops at the first False, so it would only reach the end of the sequence if it consists of all equal elements. Your algorithm will reach the end in any case. Consider the situation [True, False, ...(10000 elements more)]. My algorithm will stop after checking the first two elements; yours will check all the sequence in any case.

On the second thought, it would be faster in any case except, maybe, some very short sequences, because the first value of predicate would be either True or False, so one of the any or all functions is guaranteed to stop after checking it.

For your solution, I missed the iterator part in map. yes, the space complexity will be O(1) but then it is a slower iteration over sequence. a simple loop should be faster. Mind me I understand that they both are O(n) time complexity but simple loop should be a faster O(n) out of those two. let me know what you think.

How exactly creating new structures in memory can be more efficient? This solution has O(1) space complexity.

i think counter method is more efficient space wise. however , it has same time complexity

great solution

insane

I knew there was going to be something much more simple than what I wrote (facepalm)

This is so refreshing coming from Javascript.

smooth

I did the same, but what if n = 2_147_483_647 ?