FizzBuzz Plus

[bplus]

I didn't save what I had earlier, but I think this was it....

- Dav

Code: QB64: [Select]

1. FOR f = 1 TO 100
2.     IF f MOD 15 <> 0 AND f MOD 5 <> 0 AND f MOD 3 <> 0 THEN PRINT STR$(f) ELSE IF f MOD 15 = 0 THEN PRINT "FizzBuzz" ELSE IF f MOD 3 = 0 THEN PRINT "Fizz" ELSE IF f MOD 5 = 0 THEN PRINT "Buzz"
3. NEXT

Edit: i guess you could do a big one line, if f = 1 then else if f = 2 then, etc up to 100.  But, id really have to want that job bad...
-

Oh nice! I didn't think you could do ElseIf's on one line, good to know.

That code works without the first test mod 15 <> 0 because the AND of next 2 cover it mod 5 <> 0 AND mod 3 <> 0.

Update: I looked back and Danilin did try a version of Dav code but he kept putting in an extra line.

[STxAxTIC]

How about doing it with the fewest possible characters? Lines are too ambiguous now.

[bplus]

How about doing it with the fewest possible characters? Lines are too ambiguous now.

Hey is this a spontaneous jam? LOL

Yeah let's see who can do it in least bytes as read in Windows properties or Linux version of that (could there be a discrepancy between the 2? and/or mac.) I am thinking CR+LF versus just LF.

Lines are OK as long as colon isn't allowed, I think.

[SMcNeill]

Here's an odd little experimental version:

Code: QB64: [Select]

1. $CHECKING:OFF
2. SCREEN _NEWIMAGE(640, 480, 32)
3. start## = TIMER
4. DIM answer(10 ^ 7) AS STRING
5. FOR i& = 3 TO 10 ^ 7 STEP 3: answer(i&) = "Fizz": NEXT
6. FOR i& = 5 TO 10 ^ 7 STEP 5: answer(i&) = answer(i&) + "Buzz": NEXT
7. FOR i& = 10 ^ 7 - _HEIGHT * 10 TO 10 ^ 7
8.     IF LEN(answer(i&)) THEN PRINT answer(i&); ","; ELSE PRINT STR$(i&); ",";
9. NEXT
10. PRINT: PRINT TIMER - start##

Less than a second for the 10^7 test that Danlin was running above, and now we have our fizzes and buzzes all stored in a nice little array for future reference.

[bplus]

I tried a neater comma between and oddly it takes a tad longer, also am not seeing any time difference with
$Checking:Off in fact one run was faster without it.

Why is that so fast?
 

Update: Ah ha! No decisions!

[SMcNeill]

I tried a neater comma between and oddly it takes a tad longer, also am not seeing any time difference with
$Checking:Off in fact one run was faster without it.

Why is that so fast?
 

Update: Ah ha! No decisions!

I cheated...  Look close, and you'll see my NINJA trick!!  If you can't figure it out by morning, I'll post it for you, but I know you like a chance to study and figure things out for yourself first.  ;)

[bplus]

I cheated...  Look close, and you'll see my NINJA trick!!  If you can't figure it out by morning, I'll post it for you, but I know you like a chance to study and figure things out for yourself first.  ;)

Ohhhh you only printed the final screen LOL!

[bplus]

OK for the least Bytes I have Dav's with some fixing help from me:

Code: QB64: [Select]

1. FOR f = 1 TO 100
2.     IF f MOD 5 <> 0 AND f MOD 3 <> 0 THEN PRINT f ELSE IF f MOD 15 = 0 THEN PRINT "FizzBuzz" ELSE IF f MOD 3 = 0 THEN PRINT "Fizz" ELSE IF f MOD 5 = 0 THEN PRINT "Buzz"
3. NEXT
4.  

194 bytes in 3 lines.

bplus after learning that Else If can be used on one line as long as you divide Else with If:

Code: QB64: [Select]

1. FOR i = 1 TO 100
2.     IF i MOD 3 = 0 AND i MOD 5 = 0 THEN PRINT "FizzBuzz" ELSE IF i MOD 3 = 0 THEN PRINT "Fizz" ELSE IF i MOD 5 = 0 THEN PRINT "Buzz" ELSE PRINT i
3. NEXT
4.  

171 bytes also 3 lines.

Wait if we are doing bytes, colons for line statement separators don't matter? but I don't think there is savings for the 3 liners above.

Edit: I did not need the first line I had.
Anyway here is another bplus submission, a little unusual because it's from his SB Interpreter:

Code: [Select]

[
n i i+1
i i > 100
x
f
i i%5 = 0 and i%3 = 0
, FizzBuzz
e
i i%3 = 0
, Fizz
e
i i%5 = 0
, Buzz
e
, i
f
f
f
]
126 bytes and looks like about 19 lines!

 

[SMcNeill]

Ohhhh you only printed the final screen LOL!

Since these are interview type questions, those are my interview type answers.  It tells them a bit about me, and helps me learn a bit about them.

A boss who looks over that and says, “You didn’t print results from 1 to 10 ^ 7”, without asking me WHY, is one I don’t want to work for.  They’re not into creative solutions, original thinking, or individual problem solving — they just want a monkey that can code up to perfect specifications.  It’s too high stress of a job for me, so, “NO THANKS!”

Now, if he asks why I chose such an approach, I can tell him:

“Our view port is limited by printing to the monitor, so there’s no reason to just run and scroll the screen excessively.  Instead, I printed a whole screen of results, stored the solutions in an array, improved execution times, and now have access to any portion of that data that you’d like to view and work with, on hand.”

I not only completed his task, but I *improved* upon it.

Which in some companies will get you promoted.  In others, it’ll get you fired.

Luckily for me, I don’t want to work for those second BLEEPERS!

[STxAxTIC]

While we're showing off interpreters, here's an example I had kicking around. By no means the smallest code. Kindof a lot of formatting going on that doesn't need to happen:

 

[bplus]

Now if you want to compare how much time it took for me to write that 126 byte program...  ;(

STx did yours take longer than an QB64 program? maybe you stay current with yours.

[STxAxTIC]

I doubt any version of sxipt will be faster than qb64 - although the particular implementation we're seeing above is javascript (obviously I guess), which has zero compile time. So in a way, it's quite faster... Meaning, the workflow is faster. Make a tweak, you get the result instantly.

[bplus]

Oh you know what? I bet I could setup Notepad++ to run my code through SB.exe all it needs is the filename to Run; that would beat editing and then drag and drop onto SB.exe. I just recently loaded the NppExec extension for editing and running JB code.

[STxAxTIC]

If you use Dav's idea from the other day, you can make it directly into an exe, too!

[bplus]

Yes but nothing you can run on SB is worth the trouble of immortalization.