I'm actually pleasantly surprised to see a 2025 edition, last year being the 10th anniversary and the LLM situation with the leaderboard were solid indications that it would have been a great time to wrap it up and let somebody else carry the torch.
It's only going to be 12 problems rather than 24 this year and there isn't going to be a gloabl leaderboard, but I'm still glad we get to take part in this fun Christmas season tradition, and I'm thankful for all those who put in their free time so that we can get to enjoy the problems. It's probably an unpopular stance, but I've never done Advent of Code for the competitive aspect, I've always just enjoyed the puzzles, so as far as I'm concerned nothing was really lost.
A couple of the Slack/Discord groups I’m in do a local leaderboard with friends. It’s fun to do with a trusted group of people who are all in it for fun.
I'm also in a few local leaderboards, but I'm not "really" competing, it's more of a fun group thing.
Premises:
(i) I love Advent of Code and I'm grateful for its continuing existence in whatever form its creators feel like it's best for themselves and the community;
(ii) none of what follows is a request, let alone a demand, for anything to change;
(iii) what follows is just the opinion of some random guy on the Internet.
I have a lot of experience with competitions (although more on the math side than on the programming side), and I've been involved essentially since I was in high school, as a contestant, coach, problem writer, organizer, moving tables, etc.
In my opinion Advent of Code simply isn't a good competition:
- You need to be available for many days in a row for 15 minutes at a very specific time.
- The problems are too easy.
- There is no time/memory check: you can write ooga-booga code and still pass.
- Some problems require weird parsing.
- Some problems are pure implementation challenges.
- The AoC guy loves recursive descent parsers way too much.
- A lot of problems are underspecified (you can make assumptions not in the problem statement).
- Some problems require manual input inspection.
To reiterate once again: I am not saying that any of this needs to change. Many of the things that make Advent of Code a bad competition are what make it an excellent, fun, memorable "Christmas group thing". Coming back every day creates community and gives people time to discuss the problems. Problems being easy and not requiring specific time complexities to be accepted make the event accessible. Problems not being straight algorithmic challenges add welcome variety.
I like doing competitions but Advent of Code has always felt more like a cozy problem solving festival, I never cared too much for the competitive aspect, local or global.
There are definitely some problems that have an indirect time/memory check, in that if you don't have a right-enough algorithm, your program will never finish.
I too like the simple nature. If you care about highly performant code, you can always challenge yourself (I got into measuring timing in the second season I participated). Personally I prefer a world like this. Not everyone should have to compete on every detail (I know you stated that your points aren’t demands, I’m just pointing out my own worldview). For any given thing, there will naturally be people that are OK with “good enough”, and people who are interested to take it as far as they can. It’s nice that we can all still participate in this.
One could probably build a separate service that provides a leaderboard for solution runtimes.
I agree that it’s more of a cozy activity than a hardcore competition, that’s what I appreciate about it most.
Do you know of anything like AoC but that feels less contrived? I often spend the most time understanding the problem requirements because they are so arbitrary - like the worst kind of boardgame! Maybe I should go pick up some OSS tickets...
Being contrived, with puns or other weirdness is kinda on par for this kind of problems. Almost every programming competition I've ever been to have those kind of jokes.
But the Kattis website is great. The program runs on their server without you getting to know the input (you just get right/wrong back), so a bit different. But also then gives you memory and time constraints which you for the more difficult problems must find your way out of.
Take a look at Everybody Codes. It occurs in November instead of December, so this year is wrapping up. Like AoC, it is story based but maybe you'll find the problem extraction more to your liking.
I did a post [0] about this last year, and vanilla LLMs didn’t do nearly as well as I’d expected on advent of code, though I’d be curious to try this again with Claude code and codex
> LLMs, and especially coding focused models, have come a very long way in the past year.
I see people assert this all over the place, but personally I have decreased my usage of LLMs in the last year. During this change I’ve also increasingly developed the reputation of “the guy who can get things shipped” in my company.
I still use LLMs, and likely always will, but I no longer let them do the bulk of the work and have benefited from it.
Last April I asked Claude Sonnet 3.7 to solve AoC 2024 day 3 in x86-64 assembler and it one-shotted solutions for part 1 and 2(!)
It's true this was 4 months after AoC 2024 was out, so it may have been trained on the answer, but I think that's way too soon.
Day 3 in 2024 isn't a Math Olympiad tier problem or anything but it seems novel enough, and my prior experience with LLMs were that they were absolutely atrocious at assembler.
I know some folks were disappointed with their being 12 puzzles instead of 24 this year, but I never have time to finish anyway so it makes no difference to me lol
Eliminating the leaderboard might help. By measuring it as a race, it becomes a race, and now the goal is the metric.
Maybe just have a cool advent calendar thingy like a digital tree that gains an ornament for each day you complete. Each ornament can be themed for each puzzle.
Of course I hope it goes without saying that the creator(s) can do it however they want and we’re nothing but richer for it existing.
That 'digital tree' idea is similar to how AoC has always worked. There's a theme-appropriate ASCII graphic on the problem page that gains color and effects as you complete problems. It's not always a tree, but it was in 2015 (the first year), and in several other years at least one tree is visible. https://adventofcode.com/2015
I've ignored the leaderboard for its entire existence, as the puzzles release at something like 4AM-5AM in my timezone; there's no point getting up 4 hours early, or staying awake 4 hours after bedtime, for some points on the internet.
Instead, getting gold stars for solving the puzzles is incentive enough, and can be done as a relaxing thing in the morning.
No matter what you do, as the puzzles get harder, you won't solve them in a day (or even a lifetime) if you don't come up with good algorithms/methods/heuristics.
I disagree. Having a leaderboard also leaks into the puzzle design. So the experience is different, even if you choose to ignore the leaderboard as a participant.
That’s also completely true and something I often say about gaming. You don’t like achievements? Just don’t do them. Your enjoyment shouldn’t be a function of how others interact with the product.
I never, in all the years of participating in AoC did take a look at the global leaderboard.
Even before LLMs I knew it was filled with with results faster then you can blink.
So some of us, from gut feeling the vast majority, it was always just for fun. Usually I spent at least until March to finish as much as I did in every year.
Oh, i’m quite sure it does. In fact, it’s a central thing in so much of psychology. The only difference is how you get there. Some people can just ignore and others take more effort.
In the IEEEXTREME university programming competition there are ~10k participating teams.
Our university has a quite strong Competitive Programming program and the best teams usually rank in the top 100. Last year a team ranked 30 and it's wasn't even our strongest team (which didn't participate)
This year none of our teams was able to get in the top 1000. I would estimate close to 99% of the teams in the Top 1000 were using LLMs.
Last year they didn't seem to help much, but this year they rendered the competition pointless.
I've read blogs/seen videos of people who got in the AOC global leaderboard last year without using LLMs, but I think this year it wouldn't be possible at all.
Man, those people using LLMs in competitive programming ... where's the fun in that? I don't get people for whom it's just about winning, I wish everyone would just have some basic form of dignity and respect.
I’m a very casual gamer but even I run into obvious cheaters in any popular online game all the time.
Cheating is rampant anywhere there’s an online competition. The cheaters don’t care about respecting others, they get a thrill out of getting a lot of points against other people who are trying to compete.
Even in the real world, my runner friends always have stories about people getting caught cutting trails and all of the lengths their running organizations have to go through now to catch cheaters because it’s so common.
The thing about cheaters in a large competition is that it doesn’t take many to crowd out the leaderboard, because the leaderboard is where they get selected out. If there are 1000 teams competing and only 1% cheat, that 1% could still fill the top 10.
Yeah. I was happy to see this called out in their /about
> Should I use AI to solve Advent of Code puzzles? No. If you send a friend to the gym on your behalf, would you expect to get stronger? Advent of Code puzzles are designed to be interesting for humans to solve - no consideration is made for whether AI can or cannot solve a puzzle. If you want practice prompting an AI, there are almost certainly better exercises elsewhere designed with that in mind.
> I don't get people for whom it's just about winning, I wish everyone would just have some basic form of dignity and respect.
reminds me of something I read in "I’m a high schooler. AI is demolishing my education." [0,1] emphasis added:
> During my sophomore year, I participated in my school’s debate team. I was excited to have a space outside the classroom where creativity, critical thinking, and intellectual rigor were valued and sharpened. I love the rush of building arguments from scratch. ChatGPT was released back in 2022, when I was a freshman, but the debate team weathered that first year without being overly influenced by the technology—at least as far as I could tell. But soon, AI took hold there as well. Many students avoided the technology and still stand against it, but it was impossible to ignore what we saw at competitions: chatbots being used for research and to construct arguments between rounds.
high school debate used to be an extracurricular thing students could do for fun. now they're using chatbots in order to generate arguments that the students can just regurgitate.
the end state of this seems like a variation on Dead Internet Theory - Team A is arguing the "pro" side of some issue, Team B is arguing the "con" side, but it's just an LLM generating talking points for both sides and the humans acting as mouthpieces. it still looks like a "debate" to an outside observer, but all the critical thinking has been stripped away.
> high school debate used to be an extracurricular thing students could do for fun.
High school debate has been ruthless for a long time, even before AI. There has been a rise in the use of techniques designed to abuse the rules and derail arguments for several years. In some regions, debates have become more about teams leveraging the rules and technicalities against their opponents than organically trying to debate a subject.
It sucks that the fun is being sucked out of debate, but I guess a silver lining is that the abuse of these tactics helps everyone understand that winning debates isn't about being correct, it's about being a good debater. And a similar principle can be applied to the application of law and public policy as well.
It can be a matter of values from your upbringing or immediate environment. There are plenty of places where they value the results, not the journey, and they think that people who avoid cheating are chumps. Think about that: you are in a situation where you just want to do things for fun but everyone around you will disrespect you for not taking the easy way out.
Weirdly I feel lot more accepting of LLMs in this type of environment than in making actual products. Point is doing things fast and correct enough. So in someways LLM is just one more tool.
With products I want actual correctness. And not something thrown away.
We’re starting to get to a point where the ai can generate better code than your average developer, though. Maybe not a great developer yet, but a lot of products are written by average developers.
Given what I understand about the nature of competitive programming competitions, using an LLM seems kind of like using a calculator in an arithmetic competition (if such a thing existed) or a dictionary in a spelling bee.
These contests are about memorizing common patterns and banging out code quickly. Outsourcing that to an LLM defeats the point. You can say it's a stupid contest format, and that's fine.
(I did a couple of these in college, though we didn't practice outside of competition so we weren't especially good at it.)
In 1997, Deep Blue beat Gary Kasparov, the world chess champion. Today, chess grandmasters stand no chance against Stockfish, a chess engine that can run on a cheap phone. Yet chess remains super popular and competitive today, and while there are occasional scandals, cheating seems to be mostly prevented.
I don’t see why competitive debate or programming would be different. (But I understand why a fair global leaderboard for AOC is no longer feasible).
When I did competitions like these at uni (~10-15 years ago), we all used some thin-clients in the computer lab where the only webpages one could access were those allowed by the competition (mainly the submission portal). And then some admin/organizers would feed us and make sure people didn't cheat. Maybe we need to get back to that setup, heh.
Serious in-person competitions like ICPC are still effective against cheating. The first phase happens in a limited number of venues and the computers run a custom OS without internet access. There are many people watching so competitors don't user their phones, etc.
The Regional Finals and World Finals are in a single venue with a very controlled environment. Just like the IOI and other major competitions.
National High School Olympiads have been dealing with bigger issues because there are too many participants in the first few phases, and usually the schools themselves host the exams. There has been rampant cheating. In my country I believe the organization has resorted to manually reviewing all submissions, but I can only see this getting increasingly less effective.
This year the Canadian Computing Competition didn't officially release the final results, which for me is the best solution:
> Normally, official results from the CCC would be released shortly after the contest. For this year’s
contest, however, we will not be releasing official results. The reason for this is the significant
number of students who violated the CCC Rules. In particular, it is clear that many students
submitted code that they did not write themselves, relying instead on forbidden external help.
As such, the reliability of “ranking” students would neither be equitable, fair, or accurate.
Online competitions are just hopeless. AtCoder and Codeforces have rules against AI but no way to enforce them. A minimally competent cheater is impossible to detect. Meta Hacker Cup has a long history and is backed by a large company, but had its leaderboard crowded by cheaters this year.
Oof. I had a great time cracking the top 100 of Advent of Code back in 2020. Bittersweet to know that I got in while it was still a fun challenge for humans.
Advent of Code is one of the highlights of December for me.
It's sad, but inevitable, that the global leaderboard had to be pulled. It's also understandable that this year is just 12 days, so takes some pressure off.
If you've never done it before, I recommend it. Don't try and "win", just enjoy the problem solving and the whimsy.
Same. I usually try to use it as the "real-world problem" I need for learning a new language. Is there anywhere that people have starter advice/ templates for various languages? I'd love to know
- install like this
- initialize a directory with this command
- here are the VSCode extensions (or whatever IDE) that are the bare minimum for the language
The "only" 12 days might be disappointing (but totally understandable), however I won't mourn the global leaderboard which always felt pointless to me (even without the llm, the fact that it depends on what time you did solved problems really made it impractical for most people to actually compete). Private leaderboards with people on your timezone are much nicer.
I think I’ll set up a local leaderboard with friends this year. I was never going to make it to the global board anyway but it is sad to see it go away.
I _love_ the Advent of Code. I actually (selfishly) love that it's only 12 days this year, because by about half way, I'm struggling to find the time to sit down and do the fantastic problems because of all the holiday activities IRL.
I am very happy that we get the advent of code again this year, however I have read the FAQ for the first time, and I must admit I am not sure I understand the reasoning behind this:
> If you're posting a code repository somewhere, please don't include parts of Advent of Code like the puzzle text or your inputs.
The text I get, but the inputs? Well, I will comply, since I am getting a very nice thing for (almost) free, so it is polite to respect the wishes here, but since I commit the inputs (you know, since I want to be able to run tests) into the repository, it is bit of a shame the repo must be private.
If enough inputs are available online, someone can presumably collect them and clone the entire project without having access to the puzzle input generation code, which is the "secret sauce" of the project.
Are you saying that we all have different inputs? I've never actually checked that, but I don't think it's true. My colleagues have gotten stuck in the same places and have mentioned aspects of puzzles and input characteristics and never spoken past each other. I feel like if we had different inputs we'd have noticed by now.
It depends on the individual problem, some have a smaller problem space than others so unique inputs would be tricky for everyone.
But there are enough possible inputs that most people shouldn't come across anyone else with exactly the same input.
Part of the reason why AoC is so time consuming for Eric is that not only does he design the puzzles, he also generates the inputs programmatically, which he then feeds through his own solver(s) to ensure correctness. There is a team of beta testers that work for months ahead of the contest to ensure things go smoothly.
(The adventofcode subreddit has a lot more info on this.)
He puts together multiple inputs for each day, but they do repeat over users. There's a chance you and your colleagues have the same inputs.
He's also described, over the years, his process of making the inputs. Related to your comment, he tries to make sure that there are no features of some inputs that make the problem especially hard or easy compared to the other inputs. Look at some of the math ones, a few tricks work most of the time (but not every time). Let's say after some processing you get three numbers and the solution is their LCM, that will probably be true of every input, not just coincidental, even if it's not an inherent property of the problem itself.
I don't know how much they "stand out" because their frequency makes it so that the optimal global leaderboard strat is often to just try something dumb and see if you win input roulette.
if we just look at the last three puzzles: day 23 last year, for example, admitted the greedy solution but only for some inputs. greedy clearly shouldn't work (shuffling the vertices in a file that admits it causes it to fail).
I have a solve group that calls it "Advent of Input Roulette" because (back when there was a global leaderboard) you can definitely get a better expected score by just assuming your input is weak in structural ways.
I don't push my solutions publicly, but I made an input downloader so you can input your cookie from your browser and load (and cache) the inputs rather than commit them.
Taking out the public leaderboard makes sense imo. Even when you don't consider the LLM problem, the public Leaderboard's design was never really suited for anyone outside of the very specific short list of (US) timezones where competing for a quick solution was every feasible.
One thing I do think would be interesting is to see solution rate per hour block. It'd give an indication of how popular advent of code is across the world.
LLMs spoiled it, but it was fun to see the genuine top times. Watching competitive coders solve in real time is interesting (Youtube videos), and i wouldn't have discovered these without the leader board.
Python is extremely suitable for these kind of problems. C++ is also often used, especially by competitive programmers.
Which "non-mainstream" or even obscure languages are also well suited for AoC? Please list your weapon of choice and a short statement why it's well suited (not why you like it, why it's good for AoC).
My favourite "non-mainstream" languages are, depending on my mood at the time, either:
- Array languages such as K or Uiua. Why they're good for AoC: Great for showing off, no-one else can read your solution (including yourself a few days later), good for earlier days that might not feel as challenging
- Raw-dogging it by creating a Game Boy ROM in ASM (for the Game Boy's 'Z80-ish' Sharp LR35902). Why it's good for AoC: All of the above, you've got too much free time on your hands
Just kidding, I use Clojure or Python, and you can pry itertools from my cold, dead hands.
This year I've been working on a bytecode compiler for it, which has been a nice challenge. :)
When I want to get on the leaderboard, though, I use Go. I definitely felt a bit handicapped by the extra typing and lack of 'import solution' (compared to Python), but with an ever-growing 'utils' package and Go's fast compile times, you can still be competitive. I am very proud of my 1st place finish on Day 19 2022, and I credit it to Go's execution speed, which made my brute-force-with-heuristics approach just fast enough to be viable.
I like to use Haskell, because parser combinators usually make the input parsing aspect of the puzzles extremely straightforward. In addition, the focus of the language on laziness and recursion can lead to some very concise yet idiomatic solutions.
Example: find the first example for when this "game of life" variant has more than 1000 cells in the "alive" state.
Solution: generate infinite list of all states and iterate over them until you find one with >= 1000 alive cells.
let allStates = iterate nextState beginState # infinite list of consecutive solutions
let solution = head $ dropWhile (\currentState -> numAliveCells currentState < 1000) allStates
Yes, there are some cool solutions using laziness that aren't immediately obvious. For example, in 2015 and 2024 there were problems involving circuits of gates that were elegantly solved using the Löb function:
Haskell values are immutable, so it creates a new state on each iteration. Since most of these "game of life" type problems need to touch every cell in the simulation multiple times anyway, building a new value is not really that much more expensive than mutating in place. The Haskell GC is heavily optimized for quickly allocating and collecting short-lived objects anyway.
But yeah, if you're looking to solve the puzzle in under a microsecond you probably want something like Rust or C and keep all the data in L1 cache like some people do. If solving it in under a millisecond is still good enough, Haskell is fine.
Fun fact about Game of Life is that the leading algorithm, HashLife[1], uses immutable data structures. It's quite well suited to functional languages, and was in fact originally implemented in Lisp by Bill Gosper.
I actually plan on doing this year in Gleam, because I did the last 5 years in Haskell and want to learn a new language this year. My solutions for last year are on github at https://github.com/WJWH/aoc2024 though, if you're interested.
* The expressive syntax helps keep the solutions short.
* It has extensive standard library with tons of handy methods for AoC style problems: Enumerable#each_cons, Enumerable#each_slice, Array#transpose, Array#permutation, ...
* The bundled "prime" gem (for generating primes, checking primality, and prime factorization) comes in handy for at least a few of problems each year.
* The tools for parsing inputs and string manipulation are a bit more ergonomic than what you get even in Python: first class regular expression syntax, String#scan, String#[], Regexp::union, ...
* You can easily build your solution step-by-step by chaining method calls. I would typically start with `p File.readlines("input.txt")` and keep executing the script after adding each new method call so I can inspect the intermediate results.
This is what is great about it, the community posting hyper-creative (sometimes cursed) solutions for fun! I usually use AoC to try out a new language and that has been fun for me over the years.
I use python at work but code these in kotlin. The stdlib for lists is very comprehensive, and the syntax is sweet. So easy to make a chain of map, filter and some reduction or nice util (foldr, zipwithnext, windowed etc). Flows very well with my thought process, where in python I feel list comprehensions are the wrong order, lambdas are weak etc.
I write most as pure functional/immutable code unless a problem calls for speed. And with extension functions I've made over the years and a small library (like 2d vectors or grid utils) it's quite nice to work with. Like, if I have a 2D list (List<List<E>>), and my 2d vec, like a = IntVec(5,3), I can do myList[a] and get the element due to an operator overload extension on list-lists.
and with my own utils and extension functions added over years of competitive programming (like it's very fluent
I've had a lot of fun using Nim for AOC for many years. Once you're familiar with the language and std lib, its almost as fast to write as python, but much faster (Nim compiles to C, which then gets compiled to your executable). This means that sometimes, if your solution isn't perfect in terms of algorithmic complexity, waiting a few minutes can still save you (waiting 5 mins for your slow Nim code is OK, waiting 5 hours for your slow Python isn't really, for me). Of course all problems have a solution that can run in seconds even in Python, but sometimes it's not the one I figure out first try.
Downsides: The debugging situation is pretty bad (hope you like printf debugging), smaller community means smaller package ecosystem and fewer reference solutions to look up if you're stuck or looking for interesting alternative ideas after solving a problem on your own, but there's still quality stuff out there.
Though personally I'm thinking of trying Go this year, just for fun and learning something new.
Edit: also a static type system can save you from a few stupid bugs that you then spend 15 minutes tracking down because you added a "15" to your list without converting it to an int first or something like that.
Go is strong. You get something where writing a solution doesn't take too much time, you get a type system, you can brute-force problems, and the usual mind-numbing boring data-manipulation handling fits well into the standard tools.
OCaml is strong too. Stellar type system, fast execution and sane semantics unlike like 99% of all programming languages. If you want to create elegant solutions to problems, it's a good language.
For both, I recommend coming prepared. Set up a scaffold and create a toolbox which matches the typical problems you see in AoC. There's bound to be a 2d grid among the problems, and you need an implementation. If it can handle out-of-bounds access gracefully, things are often much easier, and so on. You don't want to hammer the head against the wall not solving the problem, but solving parsing problems. Having a combinator-parser library already in the project will help, for instance.
Any recommendations for Go? Traditionally I've gone for Python or Clojure with an 'only builtins or things I add myself' approach (e.g. no NetworkX), but I've been keen to try doing a year in Go however was a bit put off by the verbosity of the parsing and not wanting to get caught spending more time futzing with input lines and err.
Naturally later problems get more puzzle-heavy so the ratio of input-handling to puzzle-solving code changes, but it seemed a bit off putting for early days, and while I like a builtins-only approach it seems like the input handling would really benefit from a 'parse don't validate' type approach (goparsec?).
It's usually easy enough for Go you can just roll your own for the problems at hand. It won't be as elegant as having access to a combinator-parser, but all of the AoC problems aren't parsing problems.
Once you have something which can "load \n seperated numbers into array/slice" you are mostly set for the first few days. Go has verbosity. You can't really get around that.
The key thing in typed languages are to cook up the right data structures. In something without a type system, you can just wing things and work with a mess of dictionaries and lists. But trying to do the same in a typed language is just going to be uphill as you don't have the tools to manipulate the mess.
Historically, the problems has had some inter-linkage. If you built something day 3, then it's often used day 4-6 as well. Hence, you can win by spending a bit more time on elegance at day 3, and that makes the work at day 4-6 easier.
Mind you, if you just want to LLM your way through, then this doesn't matter since generating the same piece of code every day is easier. But obviously, this won't scale.
> It won't be as elegant as having access to a combinator-parser, but all of the AoC problems aren't parsing problems.
Yeah, this is essentially it for me. While it might not be a 'type-safe and correct regarding error handling' approach with Python, part of the interest of the AoC puzzles is the ability to approach them as 'almost pure' programs - no files except for puzzle input and output, no awkward areas like date time handling (usually), absolutely zero frameworks required.
> you can just wing things and work with a mess of dictionaries and lists.
Checks previous years type-hinted solutions with map[tuple[int, int], list[int]]
Yeah...
> but all of the AoC problems aren't parsing problems.
I'd say for the first ten years at least the first ten-ish days are 90% parsing and 10% solving ;) But yes, I agree, and maybe I'm worrying over a few extra visible err's in the code that I shouldn't be.
> if you just want to LLM your way through
Totally fair point if I constrain LLM usage to input handling and the things that I already know that I know how to do but don't want to type, although I've always quite liked being able to treat each day as an independent problem with no bootstrapping of any code, no 'custom AoC library', and just the minimal program required to solve the problem.
I used MATLAB last year while I was re-learning it for work. It did okay, but we didn't have a license for the Image Processing Toolbox, which has a boatload of tools for the grid based problems.
I’ve always used AoC as my jump-off point for new languages. I was thinking about using Gleam this year! I wish I had more profound reasons, but the pipeline syntax is intriguing and I just want to give it a whirl.
I tried AoC out one year with the Wolfram language, which sounds insane now, but back then it was just a "seemed like the thing to do at the time" and I'm glad I did it.
With both AoC and Project Euler I like seeing how fast I can get my solution to run with SBCL. Finding all palindromic primes below a million in less than a second is pretty neat.
If I remember correctly, one of the competitive programming experts from the global leaderboard made his own language, specifically tailored to help solve AoC problems:
(post title: "Designing a Programming Language to Speedrun Advent of Code", but starts off "The title is clickbait. I did not design and implement a programming language for the sole or even primary purpose of leaderboarding on Advent of Code. It just turned out that the programming language I was working on fit the task remarkably well.")
AoC has been a highlight of the season for me since the beginning in 2015. I experimented with many languages over the years, zeroing in on Haskell, then Miranda as my language of choice. Finally, I decided to write my own language to do AoC, and created Admiran (based upon Miranda and other lazy, pure, functional languages) with its own self-hosted compiler and library of functional data structures that are useful in AoC puzzles:
I've been using Elixir, which has been wonderful, mostly because of how amazing the built in `Enum` library is for working on lists and maps (since the majority of AoC problems are list / map processing problems, at least for the first while)
Enum really does feel like a superpower sometimes. I’ll knock out some loop and then spend a few mins with h Enum.<tab> and realise it could’ve been one or two Enum functions.
I am going to try and stick with Prolog as much as I can this year. Plenty of problems involve a lot of parsing and searching, both could be expressed declaratively in Prolog and it just works (though you do have to keep the execution model in mind).
For some grid based problems, I think spreadsheets are very powerful and under-appreciated.
The spatial and functional problem solving makes it easy to reason about how a single cell is calculated. Then simply apply that logic to all cells to come up with the solution.
Another vote for Haskell. It’s fun and the parsing bit is easy. I do struggle with some of the 2d map style questions which are simpler in a mutable 2d array in c++. It’s sometimes hard to write throwaway code in Haskell!
Elixir Livebook is my tool of choice for Advent of Code. The language is well-suited for the puzzles, I can write some Markdown if I need to record some algebra or my thought process, the notebook format serves as a REPL for instant code testing, and if the solution doesn't fit neatly into an executable form, I can write up my manual steps as well.
I've done some of the problems in R. Vectorized-by-default can avoid a lot of boilerplate. And for problems that aren't in R's happy path, I learn how to optimize in the language. And then I try to make those optimizations non-hideous to read.
I usually do it with ruby with is well suite just like python, but last year I did it with Elixir.
I think it lends itself very well to the problem set, the language is very expressive, the standard library is extensive, you can solve most things functionally with no state at all. Yet, you can use global state for things like memoization without having to rewrite all your functions so that's nice too.
IMO it's maybe the best suited language to AoC.
You can write it even faster than Python, has a very terse syntax and great numerical performance for the few challenges where that matters.
I respect the effort going into making Advent of Code but with the very heavy emphasis on string parsing, I'm not convinced it's a good way to learn most languages.
Most problems are 80%-90% massaging the input with a little data modeling which you might have to rethink for the second part and algorithms used to play a significant role only in the last few days.
That heavily favours languages which make manipulating string effortless and have very permissive data structures like Python dict or JS objects.
You are right. The exercises are heavy in one area. Still, for starting in a new language can be helpful: you have to do in/out with files. Data structures, and you will be using all flow control. So you will not be an ace, but can help to get started.
I know people who make some arbitrary extra restriction, like “no library at all” which can help to learn the basics of a language.
The downside I see is that suddenly you are solving algorithmic problems, which some times are bot trivial, and at the same time struggling with a new language.
That's a hard agree and a reason why anyone trying to learn Haskell, OCaml, or other language with minimal/"batteries depleted" stdlib will suffer.
Sure Haskell comes packaged with parser combinators, but a new user having to juggle immutability, IO and monads all at once at the same time will be almost certainly impossible.
Maybe not learning a new language from the ground up, but I think it is good training to "just write" within the language. A daily or twice-daily interaction. Setting up projects, doing the basic stuff to get things running, and reading up on the standard library.
Having smaller problems makes it possible to find multiple solutions as well.
I never liked the global leaderboard since I was usually asleep when the puzzles were released. I likely never would have had a competitive time anyway.
I never had any hope or interest to compete in the leaderboard, but I found it fun to check it out, see times, time differences ("omg 1 min for part 1 and 6 for part 2"), lookup the names of the leaders to check if they have something public about their solutions, etc. One time I even ran into the name of an old friend so it was a good excuse to say hi.
A little sad that there are fewer puzzles. But also a glad that I'll see my wife and maybe even go outside during the second half of December this year.
I find it interesting how many sponsors run their own "advent of <x>". So far I've seen "cloud", "FPGA", and a "cyber security" one in the sponsors pages (although that last one is one I remember from last year).
I'm also surprised there are a few Dutch language sponsors. Do these show up for everyone or is there some kind of region filtering applied to the sponsors shown?
BTW the page mentions Alternate Styles, which is an obscure feature in firefox (View -> Page Styles). If you try it out, you will probably run into [0] and not be able to reset the style. The workaround is to open the page in a different tab, which will go back to the default style.
While part of the fun is doing the daily tasks with your friends, you can still access the previous years and their challenges if you want to continue after advent!
Excited to see AOC back and I think it was a solid idea to get rid of the global leaderboard.
We (Depot) are sponsoring this year and have a private leaderboard [0]. We’re donating $1k/each for the top five finishers to a charity of their choice.
Isn't a publicly advertised private leaderboard - especially with cash prizes - against the new guidance? Certainly the spirit of the guidance.
>What happened to the global leaderboard? The global leaderboard was one of the largest sources of stress for me, for the infrastructure, and for many users. People took things too seriously, going way outside the spirit of the contest; some people even resorted to things like DDoS attacks. Many people incorrectly concluded that they were somehow worse programmers because their own times didn't compare. What started as a fun feature in 2015 became an ever-growing problem, and so, after ten years of Advent of Code, I removed the global leaderboard. (However, I've made it so you can share a read-only view of your private leaderboard. *Please don't use this feature or data to create a "new" global leaderboard.*)
You could, but you shouldn't have to. If you want to sign up for XYZ, you need to sign up for BigCorp, you need to add your phone number to verify your account, etc.
The "etc" is pretty important here. You can log in using Reddit, and you can create a random throwaway Reddit account without filling in any other details (no email address or phone number required).
Having done my own auth I get why they do it this way. LLMs are already a massive problem with AoC, I imagine an anonymous endpoint to validate solutions would be even worse.
Having done auth myself, I can also understand why auth is being externalised like this. The site was flooded with bots and scrapers long before LLMs gained relevance and adding all the CAPTCHAs and responding to the "why are you blocking my shady CGNAT ISP when I'm one of the good ones" complaints is just not worth it. Let some company with the right expertise deal with all of that bullshit.
I'd wish the site would have more login options, though. It's a tough nut to crack; pick a small, independent oauth login service not under control of a bit tech company and you're basically DDOSing their account creation page for all of December. Pick a big tech company and you're probably not gaining any new users. You can't do decentralized auth because then you're just doing authentication DDOS with extra steps.
If I didn't have a github account, I'd probably go with a throwaway reddit account to take part. Reddit doesn't really do the same type of tracking Twitter tries to do and it's probably the least privacy invasive of the bunch.
> Should I use AI to solve Advent of Code puzzles? No. If you send a friend to the gym on your behalf, would you expect to get stronger? Advent of Code puzzles are designed to be interesting for humans to solve - no consideration is made for whether AI can or cannot solve a puzzle. If you want practice prompting an AI, there are almost certainly better exercises elsewhere designed with that in mind.
And yet I expect the whole leaderboard to be full of AI submissions...
I am so glad there is no leaderboard this year. Making it a competition really is against the spirit of advent calendars in general. It’s also not a fair competition by default simply due to the issue of time zones and people’s life schedules not revolving around it.
There are plenty of programming competitions and hackathons out there. Let this one simply be a celebration of learning and the enjoyment of problem solving.
I agree with the first point but the second point feels irrelevant. Yeah, people's life schedules don't revolve around it, but that doesn't mean shouldn't make iy a competition. Most people who play on chess.com don't have lives that revolve around it, but that doesn't mean that chess.com should abolish Elo rankings.
> The global leaderboard was one of the largest sources of stress for me, for the infrastructure, and for many users. People took things too seriously, going way outside the spirit of the contest; some people even resorted to things like DDoS attacks. Many people incorrectly concluded that they were somehow worse programmers because their own times didn't compare. What started as a fun feature in 2015 became an ever-growing problem, and so, after ten years of Advent of Code, I removed the global leaderboard.
Depends how you look at it. Some of my colleagues rave about Claude Code, so I was thinking about trying it out on these puzzles. In that sense it is "going to the gym", just for a different thing. Since I do AoC every year, I feel like it'll give me a good feel for Claude Code compared to my baseline. And it's not just "prompting", but figuring out a workflow with tests and brainstorming and iteration and all that. I guess if the LLM can just one-shot every puzzle that's less interesting, but I suppose it would be good to know it can do that...
It 100% can do that. LLMs are trained on an unfathomable amount of data. Every AoC puzzle can be solved by identifying the algorithm behind it. Its Leetcode in a friendlier and more festive spirit.
I mean they're great programming tests, for both people and AI I'd argue - like, it'd be impressive if an AI can come up with a solution in short order, especially with minimal help / prompting / steering. But it wouldn't be a personal achievement, and if it was a competition I'd label it as cheating.
Well some people like to code and logic puzzles. And especially as it is in its raw form where you can forget all the noise you encounter while coding professionally with many hoops and responsibilities.
I agree. Didn't these puzzles ruin interviewing for many years now. AI came along and they're still doing it. Some things will needlessly drag on before they die I guess
By the same token, AI came along and we all still have intelligence, needless, eh? I mean people reading and writing stuff has nothing to do with AI. I don't see how some people see everything as a zero-sum game.
All AI is doing is solving these puzzles, which proves they don't need any form of intelligence. You're wrong for associating AI with human intelligence. It will never happen. It might be faked once, like the moon landing, but that's it.
How do they ruin interviewing? The whole point of these puzzles is that they’re meant to be fun to solve, not a means to an end, but enjoyable for what they are.
I'm not sure I understand this. Most puzzles are number-crunching but very little to do with graphics (maybe one or two), so no usually OpenGL isn't used AFAIK.
Of course, folks may use it to visualise the puzzles but not to solve them.
I support the no global leaderboard. I was in 7th place last year but quickly got bored maintaining the aggressive AI pipeline required to achieve that. If I wanted to maintain pipelines I'd just do work, and there will never be a good way to prevent people from using AI like this. Advent of Code should be fun, thank you for continuing to do it. I'm looking forward to casually playing this year!
It was pretty boring trying to place against aggressive AI pipelines like yours throughout the explicit requests not to use them[1]. I’m sorry to hear it became boring for you too.
I mean, everyone else was using them too, how can you not? That was the name of the game if you wanted to be competitive in 2024. Not using them would be like trying to do competitive pro cycling without steroids, basically impossible.
Saying everyone else is cheating is not a valid excuse for cheating. It's why aatrong became a pariah, even though he and everyone else was EPO doping.
It's only going to be 12 problems rather than 24 this year and there isn't going to be a gloabl leaderboard, but I'm still glad we get to take part in this fun Christmas season tradition, and I'm thankful for all those who put in their free time so that we can get to enjoy the problems. It's probably an unpopular stance, but I've never done Advent of Code for the competitive aspect, I've always just enjoyed the puzzles, so as far as I'm concerned nothing was really lost.
Premises:
(i) I love Advent of Code and I'm grateful for its continuing existence in whatever form its creators feel like it's best for themselves and the community;
(ii) none of what follows is a request, let alone a demand, for anything to change;
(iii) what follows is just the opinion of some random guy on the Internet.
I have a lot of experience with competitions (although more on the math side than on the programming side), and I've been involved essentially since I was in high school, as a contestant, coach, problem writer, organizer, moving tables, etc. In my opinion Advent of Code simply isn't a good competition:
- You need to be available for many days in a row for 15 minutes at a very specific time.
- The problems are too easy.
- There is no time/memory check: you can write ooga-booga code and still pass.
- Some problems require weird parsing.
- Some problems are pure implementation challenges.
- The AoC guy loves recursive descent parsers way too much.
- A lot of problems are underspecified (you can make assumptions not in the problem statement).
- Some problems require manual input inspection.
To reiterate once again: I am not saying that any of this needs to change. Many of the things that make Advent of Code a bad competition are what make it an excellent, fun, memorable "Christmas group thing". Coming back every day creates community and gives people time to discuss the problems. Problems being easy and not requiring specific time complexities to be accepted make the event accessible. Problems not being straight algorithmic challenges add welcome variety.
I like doing competitions but Advent of Code has always felt more like a cozy problem solving festival, I never cared too much for the competitive aspect, local or global.
One could probably build a separate service that provides a leaderboard for solution runtimes.
I agree that it’s more of a cozy activity than a hardcore competition, that’s what I appreciate about it most.
Just a random example: https://open.kattis.com/problems/magicallights
But the Kattis website is great. The program runs on their server without you getting to know the input (you just get right/wrong back), so a bit different. But also then gives you memory and time constraints which you for the more difficult problems must find your way out of.
https://everybody.codes/events
[0] https://www.jerpint.io/blog/2024-12-30-advent-of-code-llms/
The difference when working on larger tasks that require reasoning is night and day.
In theory it would be very interesting to go back and retry the 2024 tasks, but those will likely have ended up in the training data by now...
I see people assert this all over the place, but personally I have decreased my usage of LLMs in the last year. During this change I’ve also increasingly developed the reputation of “the guy who can get things shipped” in my company.
I still use LLMs, and likely always will, but I no longer let them do the bulk of the work and have benefited from it.
It's true this was 4 months after AoC 2024 was out, so it may have been trained on the answer, but I think that's way too soon.
Day 3 in 2024 isn't a Math Olympiad tier problem or anything but it seems novel enough, and my prior experience with LLMs were that they were absolutely atrocious at assembler.
https://adventofcode.com/2024/day/3
But as others have said, it’s a night and day difference now, particularly with code execution.
I'm just glad they're keeping this going.
Doing things for the fun of it, for curiosity's sake, for the thrill of solving a fun problem - that's very much alive, don't worry!
Maybe just have a cool advent calendar thingy like a digital tree that gains an ornament for each day you complete. Each ornament can be themed for each puzzle.
Of course I hope it goes without saying that the creator(s) can do it however they want and we’re nothing but richer for it existing.
It becomes a race when you start seeing it as a race :) One can just... ignore the leaderboard
Instead, getting gold stars for solving the puzzles is incentive enough, and can be done as a relaxing thing in the morning.
No matter what you do, as the puzzles get harder, you won't solve them in a day (or even a lifetime) if you don't come up with good algorithms/methods/heuristics.
Even before LLMs I knew it was filled with with results faster then you can blink.
So some of us, from gut feeling the vast majority, it was always just for fun. Usually I spent at least until March to finish as much as I did in every year.
Many people do - well, did - AoC while ignoring the leaderboard.
In the IEEEXTREME university programming competition there are ~10k participating teams.
Our university has a quite strong Competitive Programming program and the best teams usually rank in the top 100. Last year a team ranked 30 and it's wasn't even our strongest team (which didn't participate)
This year none of our teams was able to get in the top 1000. I would estimate close to 99% of the teams in the Top 1000 were using LLMs.
Last year they didn't seem to help much, but this year they rendered the competition pointless.
I've read blogs/seen videos of people who got in the AOC global leaderboard last year without using LLMs, but I think this year it wouldn't be possible at all.
Cheating is rampant anywhere there’s an online competition. The cheaters don’t care about respecting others, they get a thrill out of getting a lot of points against other people who are trying to compete.
Even in the real world, my runner friends always have stories about people getting caught cutting trails and all of the lengths their running organizations have to go through now to catch cheaters because it’s so common.
The thing about cheaters in a large competition is that it doesn’t take many to crowd out the leaderboard, because the leaderboard is where they get selected out. If there are 1000 teams competing and only 1% cheat, that 1% could still fill the top 10.
> Should I use AI to solve Advent of Code puzzles? No. If you send a friend to the gym on your behalf, would you expect to get stronger? Advent of Code puzzles are designed to be interesting for humans to solve - no consideration is made for whether AI can or cannot solve a puzzle. If you want practice prompting an AI, there are almost certainly better exercises elsewhere designed with that in mind.
Imagine the shitshow that gaming would be without any kind of anti-cheat measures, and that's the state of competitive programming.
reminds me of something I read in "I’m a high schooler. AI is demolishing my education." [0,1] emphasis added:
> During my sophomore year, I participated in my school’s debate team. I was excited to have a space outside the classroom where creativity, critical thinking, and intellectual rigor were valued and sharpened. I love the rush of building arguments from scratch. ChatGPT was released back in 2022, when I was a freshman, but the debate team weathered that first year without being overly influenced by the technology—at least as far as I could tell. But soon, AI took hold there as well. Many students avoided the technology and still stand against it, but it was impossible to ignore what we saw at competitions: chatbots being used for research and to construct arguments between rounds.
high school debate used to be an extracurricular thing students could do for fun. now they're using chatbots in order to generate arguments that the students can just regurgitate.
the end state of this seems like a variation on Dead Internet Theory - Team A is arguing the "pro" side of some issue, Team B is arguing the "con" side, but it's just an LLM generating talking points for both sides and the humans acting as mouthpieces. it still looks like a "debate" to an outside observer, but all the critical thinking has been stripped away.
0: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/09/high-...
1: https://archive.is/Lda1x
High school debate has been ruthless for a long time, even before AI. There has been a rise in the use of techniques designed to abuse the rules and derail arguments for several years. In some regions, debates have become more about teams leveraging the rules and technicalities against their opponents than organically trying to debate a subject.
With products I want actual correctness. And not something thrown away.
(I did a couple of these in college, though we didn't practice outside of competition so we weren't especially good at it.)
I don’t see why competitive debate or programming would be different. (But I understand why a fair global leaderboard for AOC is no longer feasible).
The Regional Finals and World Finals are in a single venue with a very controlled environment. Just like the IOI and other major competitions.
National High School Olympiads have been dealing with bigger issues because there are too many participants in the first few phases, and usually the schools themselves host the exams. There has been rampant cheating. In my country I believe the organization has resorted to manually reviewing all submissions, but I can only see this getting increasingly less effective.
This year the Canadian Computing Competition didn't officially release the final results, which for me is the best solution:
> Normally, official results from the CCC would be released shortly after the contest. For this year’s contest, however, we will not be releasing official results. The reason for this is the significant number of students who violated the CCC Rules. In particular, it is clear that many students submitted code that they did not write themselves, relying instead on forbidden external help. As such, the reliability of “ranking” students would neither be equitable, fair, or accurate.
Available here: [PDF] https://cemc.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2025...
Online competitions are just hopeless. AtCoder and Codeforces have rules against AI but no way to enforce them. A minimally competent cheater is impossible to detect. Meta Hacker Cup has a long history and is backed by a large company, but had its leaderboard crowded by cheaters this year.
It's sad, but inevitable, that the global leaderboard had to be pulled. It's also understandable that this year is just 12 days, so takes some pressure off.
If you've never done it before, I recommend it. Don't try and "win", just enjoy the problem solving and the whimsy.
- install like this
- initialize a directory with this command
- here are the VSCode extensions (or whatever IDE) that are the bare minimum for the language
- here's the command for running tests
Huge thanks to those involved!
> If you're posting a code repository somewhere, please don't include parts of Advent of Code like the puzzle text or your inputs.
The text I get, but the inputs? Well, I will comply, since I am getting a very nice thing for (almost) free, so it is polite to respect the wishes here, but since I commit the inputs (you know, since I want to be able to run tests) into the repository, it is bit of a shame the repo must be private.
But there are enough possible inputs that most people shouldn't come across anyone else with exactly the same input.
Part of the reason why AoC is so time consuming for Eric is that not only does he design the puzzles, he also generates the inputs programmatically, which he then feeds through his own solver(s) to ensure correctness. There is a team of beta testers that work for months ahead of the contest to ensure things go smoothly.
(The adventofcode subreddit has a lot more info on this.)
He's also described, over the years, his process of making the inputs. Related to your comment, he tries to make sure that there are no features of some inputs that make the problem especially hard or easy compared to the other inputs. Look at some of the math ones, a few tricks work most of the time (but not every time). Let's say after some processing you get three numbers and the solution is their LCM, that will probably be true of every input, not just coincidental, even if it's not an inherent property of the problem itself.
There has been the odd puzzle where some inputs have allowed simpler solutions than others, but those have stood out.
if we just look at the last three puzzles: day 23 last year, for example, admitted the greedy solution but only for some inputs. greedy clearly shouldn't work (shuffling the vertices in a file that admits it causes it to fail).
I have a solve group that calls it "Advent of Input Roulette" because (back when there was a global leaderboard) you can definitely get a better expected score by just assuming your input is weak in structural ways.
One thing I do think would be interesting is to see solution rate per hour block. It'd give an indication of how popular advent of code is across the world.
Python is extremely suitable for these kind of problems. C++ is also often used, especially by competitive programmers.
Which "non-mainstream" or even obscure languages are also well suited for AoC? Please list your weapon of choice and a short statement why it's well suited (not why you like it, why it's good for AoC).
- Array languages such as K or Uiua. Why they're good for AoC: Great for showing off, no-one else can read your solution (including yourself a few days later), good for earlier days that might not feel as challenging
- Raw-dogging it by creating a Game Boy ROM in ASM (for the Game Boy's 'Z80-ish' Sharp LR35902). Why it's good for AoC: All of the above, you've got too much free time on your hands
Just kidding, I use Clojure or Python, and you can pry itertools from my cold, dead hands.
This year I've been working on a bytecode compiler for it, which has been a nice challenge. :)
When I want to get on the leaderboard, though, I use Go. I definitely felt a bit handicapped by the extra typing and lack of 'import solution' (compared to Python), but with an ever-growing 'utils' package and Go's fast compile times, you can still be competitive. I am very proud of my 1st place finish on Day 19 2022, and I credit it to Go's execution speed, which made my brute-force-with-heuristics approach just fast enough to be viable.
That was impressive! Do you have a public repo with your language, anywhere?
Example: find the first example for when this "game of life" variant has more than 1000 cells in the "alive" state.
Solution: generate infinite list of all states and iterate over them until you find one with >= 1000 alive cells.
https://github.com/quchen/articles/blob/master/loeb-moeb.md
But yeah, if you're looking to solve the puzzle in under a microsecond you probably want something like Rust or C and keep all the data in L1 cache like some people do. If solving it in under a millisecond is still good enough, Haskell is fine.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashlife
Scheme is fairly well suited to both general programming, and abstract math, which tends to be a good fit for AoC.
* The expressive syntax helps keep the solutions short.
* It has extensive standard library with tons of handy methods for AoC style problems: Enumerable#each_cons, Enumerable#each_slice, Array#transpose, Array#permutation, ...
* The bundled "prime" gem (for generating primes, checking primality, and prime factorization) comes in handy for at least a few of problems each year.
* The tools for parsing inputs and string manipulation are a bit more ergonomic than what you get even in Python: first class regular expression syntax, String#scan, String#[], Regexp::union, ...
* You can easily build your solution step-by-step by chaining method calls. I would typically start with `p File.readlines("input.txt")` and keep executing the script after adding each new method call so I can inspect the intermediate results.
So.. a language that you're interested in or like?
Reminds me of "gamers will optimize the fun out of a game"
I'm pretty clojure-curious so might mess around with doing it in that
I write most as pure functional/immutable code unless a problem calls for speed. And with extension functions I've made over the years and a small library (like 2d vectors or grid utils) it's quite nice to work with. Like, if I have a 2D list (List<List<E>>), and my 2d vec, like a = IntVec(5,3), I can do myList[a] and get the element due to an operator overload extension on list-lists.
and with my own utils and extension functions added over years of competitive programming (like it's very fluent
Downsides: The debugging situation is pretty bad (hope you like printf debugging), smaller community means smaller package ecosystem and fewer reference solutions to look up if you're stuck or looking for interesting alternative ideas after solving a problem on your own, but there's still quality stuff out there.
Though personally I'm thinking of trying Go this year, just for fun and learning something new.
Edit: also a static type system can save you from a few stupid bugs that you then spend 15 minutes tracking down because you added a "15" to your list without converting it to an int first or something like that.
OCaml is strong too. Stellar type system, fast execution and sane semantics unlike like 99% of all programming languages. If you want to create elegant solutions to problems, it's a good language.
For both, I recommend coming prepared. Set up a scaffold and create a toolbox which matches the typical problems you see in AoC. There's bound to be a 2d grid among the problems, and you need an implementation. If it can handle out-of-bounds access gracefully, things are often much easier, and so on. You don't want to hammer the head against the wall not solving the problem, but solving parsing problems. Having a combinator-parser library already in the project will help, for instance.
Any recommendations for Go? Traditionally I've gone for Python or Clojure with an 'only builtins or things I add myself' approach (e.g. no NetworkX), but I've been keen to try doing a year in Go however was a bit put off by the verbosity of the parsing and not wanting to get caught spending more time futzing with input lines and err.
Naturally later problems get more puzzle-heavy so the ratio of input-handling to puzzle-solving code changes, but it seemed a bit off putting for early days, and while I like a builtins-only approach it seems like the input handling would really benefit from a 'parse don't validate' type approach (goparsec?).
Once you have something which can "load \n seperated numbers into array/slice" you are mostly set for the first few days. Go has verbosity. You can't really get around that.
The key thing in typed languages are to cook up the right data structures. In something without a type system, you can just wing things and work with a mess of dictionaries and lists. But trying to do the same in a typed language is just going to be uphill as you don't have the tools to manipulate the mess.
Historically, the problems has had some inter-linkage. If you built something day 3, then it's often used day 4-6 as well. Hence, you can win by spending a bit more time on elegance at day 3, and that makes the work at day 4-6 easier.
Mind you, if you just want to LLM your way through, then this doesn't matter since generating the same piece of code every day is easier. But obviously, this won't scale.
Yeah, this is essentially it for me. While it might not be a 'type-safe and correct regarding error handling' approach with Python, part of the interest of the AoC puzzles is the ability to approach them as 'almost pure' programs - no files except for puzzle input and output, no awkward areas like date time handling (usually), absolutely zero frameworks required.
> you can just wing things and work with a mess of dictionaries and lists.
Checks previous years type-hinted solutions with map[tuple[int, int], list[int]]
Yeah...
> but all of the AoC problems aren't parsing problems.
I'd say for the first ten years at least the first ten-ish days are 90% parsing and 10% solving ;) But yes, I agree, and maybe I'm worrying over a few extra visible err's in the code that I shouldn't be.
> if you just want to LLM your way through
Totally fair point if I constrain LLM usage to input handling and the things that I already know that I know how to do but don't want to type, although I've always quite liked being able to treat each day as an independent problem with no bootstrapping of any code, no 'custom AoC library', and just the minimal program required to solve the problem.
A lot of the problems involve manipulating sets and maps, which Clojure makes really straightforward.
Things like `partition`, `cycle` or `repeat` have come in so handy when working with segments of lists or the Conway's Game-of-Life type puzzles.
I tried AoC out one year with the Wolfram language, which sounds insane now, but back then it was just a "seemed like the thing to do at the time" and I'm glad I did it.
https://github.com/betaveros/noulith
(post title: "Designing a Programming Language to Speedrun Advent of Code", but starts off "The title is clickbait. I did not design and implement a programming language for the sole or even primary purpose of leaderboarding on Advent of Code. It just turned out that the programming language I was working on fit the task remarkably well.")
https://github.com/taolson/Admiran https://github.com/taolson/advent-of-code
I wrote a bit more about it here https://laszlo.nu/blog/advent-of-code-2024.html
AoC is a great opportunity for exploring languages!
The spatial and functional problem solving makes it easy to reason about how a single cell is calculated. Then simply apply that logic to all cells to come up with the solution.
I think it lends itself very well to the problem set, the language is very expressive, the standard library is extensive, you can solve most things functionally with no state at all. Yet, you can use global state for things like memoization without having to rewrite all your functions so that's nice too.
Most problems are 80%-90% massaging the input with a little data modeling which you might have to rethink for the second part and algorithms used to play a significant role only in the last few days.
That heavily favours languages which make manipulating string effortless and have very permissive data structures like Python dict or JS objects.
I know people who make some arbitrary extra restriction, like “no library at all” which can help to learn the basics of a language.
The downside I see is that suddenly you are solving algorithmic problems, which some times are bot trivial, and at the same time struggling with a new language.
Sure Haskell comes packaged with parser combinators, but a new user having to juggle immutability, IO and monads all at once at the same time will be almost certainly impossible.
Having smaller problems makes it possible to find multiple solutions as well.
I'm also surprised there are a few Dutch language sponsors. Do these show up for everyone or is there some kind of region filtering applied to the sponsors shown?
0: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1943796
It's kotlin and shik for me this year, probably a bit of both. And no stupid competitions, AoC should be fun.
https://gitlab.com/codr7/shik
We (Depot) are sponsoring this year and have a private leaderboard [0]. We’re donating $1k/each for the top five finishers to a charity of their choice.
[0] https://depot.dev/events/advent-of-code-2025
>What happened to the global leaderboard? The global leaderboard was one of the largest sources of stress for me, for the infrastructure, and for many users. People took things too seriously, going way outside the spirit of the contest; some people even resorted to things like DDoS attacks. Many people incorrectly concluded that they were somehow worse programmers because their own times didn't compare. What started as a fun feature in 2015 became an ever-growing problem, and so, after ten years of Advent of Code, I removed the global leaderboard. (However, I've made it so you can share a read-only view of your private leaderboard. *Please don't use this feature or data to create a "new" global leaderboard.*)
No thanks.
Having done auth myself, I can also understand why auth is being externalised like this. The site was flooded with bots and scrapers long before LLMs gained relevance and adding all the CAPTCHAs and responding to the "why are you blocking my shady CGNAT ISP when I'm one of the good ones" complaints is just not worth it. Let some company with the right expertise deal with all of that bullshit.
I'd wish the site would have more login options, though. It's a tough nut to crack; pick a small, independent oauth login service not under control of a bit tech company and you're basically DDOSing their account creation page for all of December. Pick a big tech company and you're probably not gaining any new users. You can't do decentralized auth because then you're just doing authentication DDOS with extra steps.
If I didn't have a github account, I'd probably go with a throwaway reddit account to take part. Reddit doesn't really do the same type of tracking Twitter tries to do and it's probably the least privacy invasive of the bunch.
On a serious note, I just saw this: https://linuxupskillchallenge.org
And yet I expect the whole leaderboard to be full of AI submissions...
Edit: No leaderboard this year, nice!
There are plenty of programming competitions and hackathons out there. Let this one simply be a celebration of learning and the enjoyment of problem solving.
> The global leaderboard was one of the largest sources of stress for me, for the infrastructure, and for many users. People took things too seriously, going way outside the spirit of the contest; some people even resorted to things like DDoS attacks. Many people incorrectly concluded that they were somehow worse programmers because their own times didn't compare. What started as a fun feature in 2015 became an ever-growing problem, and so, after ten years of Advent of Code, I removed the global leaderboard.
There will be no global leaderboard this year.
Of course, folks may use it to visualise the puzzles but not to solve them.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20241201070128/https://adventofc...
Although there are now rumours of hidden motors in Tour de France bicycles. So, I guess it's the same.