Work

[GORDON]

My personal assessment of my own code, once I had the eyes to make that kind of analysis, is that my code tends to be more utilitarian than artistic. I've seen things I have done redone now and again to be prettier, but not with any better functionality.

[TPRJones]

Not sure of the exact syntax of the language you are using, but I think this would be close to maximum efficiency (please excuse my pseudocode):

public function FizzBuzzLoop(int i)
{
str thistime = null;
if (i % 3 == 0) { thistime = "Fizz"; }
if (i % 5 == 0) { thistime = thistime + "Buzz"; }
if (thistime == null) { Console.WriteLine(i.ToString()); }
else { Console.WriteLine(thistime); }
if (i < 101) { FizzBuzzLoop(i+1); }
}


One less evaluation and it swaps in recursion in place of a while loop.

[Malcolm]

My personal assessment of my own code, once I had the eyes to make that kind of analysis, is that my code tends to be more utilitarian than artistic. I've seen things I have done redone now and again to be prettier, but not with any better functionality.

After debugging other people's code enough, I place readability on a very high level.

[TheCatt]

Not sure of the exact syntax of the language you are using, but I think this would be close to maximum efficiency (please excuse my pseudocode):

public function FizzBuzzLoop(int i)
{
str thistime = null;
if (i % 3 == 0) { thistime = "Fizz"; }
if (i % 5 == 0) { thistime = thistime + "Buzz"; }
if (thistime == null) { Console.WriteLine(i.ToString()); }
else { Console.WriteLine(thistime); }
if (i < 101) { FizzBuzzLoop(i+1); }
}


One less evaluation and it swaps in recursion in place of a while loop.

The recursion is unnecessary. And inefficient, as you will be increasing your memory allocation for the variables you create with each call, that won't go out of scope since your calls are now nested.

[TPRJones]

Oh. Well, nevermind then.

Need a better language. Recursion is too awesome to sacrifice to bad memory management.

[TheCatt]

Oh. Well, nevermind then.

Need a better language. Recursion is too awesome to sacrifice to bad memory management.

I'm not sure what language that would be possible in.

That Fibonacci solution for recursion is nice.

[thibodeaux]

Oh. Well, nevermind then.

Need a better language. Recursion is too awesome to sacrifice to bad memory management.

Some LISPs have "tail recursion" which can be implemented as a GOTO. No memory problems.

[TPRJones]

I could do it in Forth. Or declare the variables as globals instead (Pascal, Fortran, many others), although that's bad for other reasons.

[Malcolm]

Oh. Well, nevermind then.

Need a better language. Recursion is too awesome to sacrifice to bad memory management.

I'm not sure what language that would be possible in.

That Fibonacci solution for recursion is nice.

Inefficient as hell, too.

Some LISPs have "tail recursion" which can be implemented as a GOTO. No memory problems.

TPR's solution looks tail-recursive (iterative). Run-time is still big-omega(N). In fact, outside of butchering the logic inside the function, it'd be hard to make this recursive in a dangerous way. It's the opposite of the Fibonacci, which is (relatively) difficult to do non-recursively. Someone today, with some hints, finally got the good solution. First one this round.



Edited By Malcolm on 1407195179

[GORDON]

So is there some rule in fizzbuzz that says I can't just write a single line of code: print " 1 2 fizz 4 buzz..." Etc?

I mean, as long as we are thinking outside the box. Did anyone say it had to be overly complicated?

[Malcolm]

So is there some rule in fizzbuzz that says I can't just write a single line of code: print " 1 2 fizz 4 buzz..." Etc?

I mean, as long as we are thinking outside the box. Did anyone say it had to be overly complicated?

Works fine until you print from 1 to N.

EDIT: Contractor managed to renege on his acceptance. Fucking recruiting firms and their visa bullshit.



Edited By Malcolm on 1407517648