Fizzbuzz!

[Zach]

It's pretty trivial, but fun all the same.

http://golf.shinh.org/p.rb?FizzBuzz

Problem:

Print integers 1 to 100, but replace multiples of 3 with "Fizz" and multiples of 5 with "Buzz" and multiples of both with "FizzBuzz"

Challenge:

Do it in the least amount of bytes possible.

<?for($i=1;$i<101;$i++)echo(($i%3<1?"Fizz":'').($i%5<1?"Buzz": (($i%3?$i:''))."\n")?>

(1..100).map{|n|puts"FizzBuzz#{n}"[n%3<1?0:n%5<1?4:8,n%15<1?8:4]}

http://zorachus.net/brainfuck.bf

I didn't use looping in Brainfuck, just did it line-by-line, but by God, I did it!

This should be interesting.

Edit: If you go to the main site of http://zorachus.net, you'll see random XKCD comics, and then, of course, a link to this site. I'm hotlinking, but my site has less than 20 people that have even seen it, so I'm assuming it's not a problem. If it is, of course, I'll stop hotlinking immediately.

[adlaiff6]

Sounds like the Buzz competitions in NYSML.

[Aglet]

I just spent half an hour trying to figure out why my Python program wasn't working for this competition.

Turns out that in the shebang line at the beginning, I forgot the exclamation point.

[Torn Apart By Dingos]

This was my first try in Haskell. If you remove unnecessary whitespace, it's 120 bytes.

Code: Select all

main = putStr . unlines $ zipWith3 f [1..100] (cycle [0,0,4]) (cycle [0,0,0,0,4])
f x 0 0 = show x
f _ y z = take y "Jizz" ++ take z "Buzz"

After a lot of struggling, I managed another solution of 106 bytes. Now it's less readable than Perl.

Code: Select all

b s d n|mod n d==0=s|True="";m""x=show x;m y _=y;main=putStr$do n<-[1..100];m(b"Jizz"3n++b"Buzz"5n)n++"\n"

edit: An improvement of 8 bytes.

[SirNotApearingOnThisForum]

Chances are there's an even briefer way to do this, but this seems to be as small as I can get it in C (101 chars):

Code: Select all

main(i){while(i<101)!printf("%s%s","\0Fizz"+!(i%3),"\0Buzz"+!(i%5))&&printf("%d",i),putchar(10),i++;}

[EvanED]

Chances are there's an even briefer way to do this, but this seems to be as small as I can get it in C (101 chars):

Code: Select all

main(i){while(i<101)!printf("%s%s","\0Fizz"+!(i%3),"\0Buzz"+!(i%5))&&printf("%d",i),putchar(10),i++;}

I must say I'm impressed. There are some pretty nifty space-saving tricks in there.

[Yakk]

Code: Select all

main(i){char*a[]={"%d\n","Fizz\n","Buzz\n","FizzBuzz\n"};while(i<101)printf(a+!(i%3)+2*!(i%5),i++);}


100 characters! (technically 101, because the standard requires a trailing newline)

If I can get the user to preload argv, I've got a ridiculously short one.

[SirNotApearingOnThisForum]

woot, 95 chars:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(i<101)printf("Fizz\n\0Buzz\n\0FizzBuzz\n\0%d\n"+(i%15?i%3?i%5?22:6:0:12),i),i++;}

btw Yakk your code dosn't really work. you'd have to dereference the address a+!(i%3)+2*!(i%5) (eg. a[!(i%3)+2*!(i%5)]), because printf's first parameter is a char * while you're passing it a char **. and post-incrementing i as a parameter seems to screw up your fizz-buzz calculations (I think its because of the parameter stack; i is added to the stack, incremented, then used in the fizzbuzz expression in the 'next' parameter).

edit2: make that 89 chars:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(i<101)printf("%d  \n\0Fizz\n\0Buzz\n\0FizzBuzz\n"+6*!(i%3)+12*!(i++%5),i);}

[Yakk]

woot, 95 chars:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(i<101)printf("Fizz\n\0Buzz\n\0FizzBuzz\n\0%d\n"+(i%15?i%3?i%5?22:6:0:12),i),i++;}

btw Yakk your code dosn't really work. you'd have to dereference the address a+!(i%3)+2*!(i%5) (eg. a[!(i%3)+2*!(i%5)]), because printf's first parameter is a char * while you're passing it a char **. and post-incrementing i as a parameter seems to screw up your fizz-buzz calculations (I think its because of the parameter stack; i is added to the stack, incremented, then used in the fizzbuzz expression in the 'next' parameter).

Ya, order of evalutation for arguements of a function is not defined. Forgot about that.

edit2: make that 89 chars:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(i<101)printf("%d  \n\0Fizz\n\0Buzz\n\0FizzBuzz\n"+6*!(i%3)+12*!(i++%5),i);}

Corrected:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(i<101)printf("%d\n\0$$Fizz\n\0Buzz\n\0FizzBuzz\n"+6*!(i%3)+12*!(i%5),i);i++}

Now we don't print out extranious spaces. Plus we cannot increment i in the printf statement, the order of evaluation of the arguements is not defined (there are no sequence points between arguements).

[chrismurf]

I'm late to the game, but here's my entry in python (actually, I did it a while ago, but just stumbled on this thread ).

print ", ".join([str((i, "Fizz", "Buzz", "FizzBuzz")[int((i % 3)==0) + int(2*((i % 5)==0))]) for i in xrange(1,101)])

I feel it's a pretty "creative" solution

[warriorness]

All right, I did mine in Java because that's the only language I know well enough. Damned JVM wouldn't let me have a main method with a non-String[] parameter. Also I made p(String) so I didn't have to waste bytes typing out "System.out.println(...);" for each print call. It probably saved about five bytes.

Expanded, my code looks like this:

Code: Select all

class A
{
   public static void main(String[]a)
   {
      for(int i=1;i<101;i++)
      {
         String f="Fizz";
         String b="Buzz";
         if(i%3==0)
         {
            p(f)
            if(i%5==0) p(b);
         }
         else if(i%5==0) p(b);
         else p(i+"");
         p("\n");
      }
   }
   static void p(String a)
   {
      System.out.print(a);
   }
}

Collapsed, it becomes 219 characters.

Code: Select all

class A{public static void main(String[]a){for(int i=1;i<101;i++){String f="Fizz";String b="Buzz";if(i%3==0){p(f);if(i%5==0)p(b);}else if(i%5==0)p(b);else p(i+"");p("\n");}}static void p(String a){System.out.print(a);}}

EDIT: According to the website there have to be newlines. Without them it's 211 characters.

[SpitValve]

Could you make that smaller using System.out.println(something with lots of ? : in it); ?

[EvanED]

Without thinking about it, you could definitely lose 10 characters by passing "Fizz" as a literal strings to p() on line 11. Doing the same with Buzz on 12 and 14 is also profitable, but only by 5 characters.

Are you allowed to drop the argument to main? Or what about something like !(i%3) instead of i%3==0?

/Hasn't programmed Java for a while

EDIT: Wait, I'm an idiot. !(i%3) is the same length as i%3==0.

[bitwiseshiftleft]

Oh yeah? Well how about this one (written in sh)?

wget -qO- tinyurl.com/2ofw5m

28 characters!

[warriorness]

Could you make that smaller using System.out.println(something with lots of ? : in it); ?

Yep, you're right there. Unfortunately you can't use (i%3) as x in the x?y:z construction - javac demands an actual boolean, so I have to use == or !=. I cut it down to 141 bytes with this program.

Expanded:

Code: Select all

class B
{
   public static void main(String[] a)
   {
      for(int i = 1; i < 101; i++)
      {
         System.out.println(
            i%3*i%5 != 0 //i is none
            ?
               i
            : //i is 3, 5, or 15
               i%5 != 0 //i is 3
               ?
                  "Fizz"
               ://i is either 5 or 15
                  
                  i%3==0?"FizzBuzz":"Buzz"
         );
      }
   }
}

Compressed:

Code: Select all

class B{public static void main(String[]a){for(int i=1;i<101;i++){System.out.println(i%3*i%5!=0?i:i%5!=0?"Fizz":i%3==0?"FizzBuzz":"Buzz");}}}

And that puts me in 12th place for the Java section.

EDIT: No! They use the Java 1.4 compiler/library, which doesn't have a bunch of overloaded System.out.println(...) methods. So I can't use just i on line 10, I have to use i+"" which is an additional 3 bytes, giving me 144 characters and tying for 12th place (they put me on 13).

[SpitValve]

Does it count if it keeps on writing numbers after 100? e.g. for(int i=1;;i++){bla} ?

[warriorness]

Does it count if it keeps on writing numbers after 100? e.g. for(int i=1;;i++){bla} ?

Nope. When you submit, it checks the output of your code - it has to match up exactly. (And nothing printed to stderr either)

[Drostie]

I've done Java in 135, for 10th place (me = Chris Drost), and I'm trying to cut it even a little bit lower.

[yy2bggggs]

89 characters, except that it works.

Code: Select all

main(i){while(printf("%sFizzBuzz\n\0Fizz\n\0%s%d\n"+12*!!(i%5)+6*!!(i%3),"",i),++i<101);}


[Drostie]

Okay, I've given up a bit on trying to do it in fewer.

Here's 135, if you kill all the whitespace:

Code: Select all

class A{
    public static void main(String[] a){
        for(int i=0; ++i<101; )
            System.out.println(
                i%15<1?
                    "FizzBuzz" :
                    i%3<1?
                        "Fizz":
                        i%5<1?
                            "Buzz":
                             ""+i
            );
    }
}

This is just a straight "if, else if, else if, else" chain. As such, it needs no parentheses.

The for-loop doesn't need any curly braces in Java -- if they're omitted, it repeats the next item over again.

I wanted to use the String concatenation +, but the smallest I got that to was:

Code: Select all

i%5*i%3>0?
    ""+i:
    (i%3<1?"Fizz":"") + (i%5<1?"Buzz":"")

Unfortunately, that's just barely larger than the earlier code, and it doesn't seem like you can do away with any of the underlying components.

I was briefly wondering if the challenge would let you use a \r to overwrite previous characters on the line; but I couldn't manage to compress the code any more even with \r's, so I gave up on that.

[warriorness]

I've done Java in 135, for 10th place (me = Chris Drost), and I'm trying to cut it even a little bit lower.

Care to post the source? EDIT: Apparently I've been beaten to the punch.

I personally am disappointed that the website doesn't store entrants' source code - it is only around 100 bytes per entry, after all! I'd love to see the thus-far-winning Bash entry (I love Bash but suck at it).

EDIT 2: I don't know why I didn't realize "<1" is a byte less than "==0". Damn programming-by-habit. Using that idea (I didn't feel it'd be right to steal your other ones) I'm down to 139, and done, hopefully.

[SirNotApearingOnThisForum]

aha, 81 chars:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(printf(i%5?i%3?"%d\n":"Fizz\n":"FizzBuzz\n"+4*!!(i%3),i),i++<100);}

[Yakk]

btw, doesn't that PHP entry at the top have a bug?

I could unbalanced quotes, and naively it seems to print out the number regardless of the fizbuzzianness of it.

[Zach]

btw, doesn't that PHP entry at the top have a bug?

I could unbalanced quotes, and naively it seems to print out the number regardless of the fizbuzzianness of it.

Yep, sorry, wrong one. Check the edit. (Up to 83 bytes )

[Yakk]

In a related comment:

Why Python is Better Than Perl - Reason #256
Because this is still the cleverest hello world program in Python:
#!/usr/bin/env python
print "Hello, world!"

Code: Select all

print " ".join("l".join("".join("H","e"),"".join("l","o")),"r".join("".join("w","o"),"d".join("l","!")))

or, even more fun:

Code: Select all

print reduce(lambda a,b:a[:1].join([a[1:], b]), [x for x in "oHrlWdel ol!"])

[Aglet]

I will admit, I know of two ways where Perl is better than Python:

1. Regular expressions.

2. Making hilariously indecipherable programs, which is really a bad sign for heavy-duty programming languages but makes for great fun.

One of my personal favorites is this one:

Code: Select all

 not exp log srand xor s qq qx xor
 s x x length uc ord and print chr
 ord for qw q join use sub tied qx
 xor eval xor print qq q q xor int
 eval lc q m cos and print chr ord
 for qw y abs ne open tied hex exp
 ref y m xor scalar srand print qq
 q q xor int eval lc qq y sqrt cos
 and print chr ord for qw x printf
 each return local x y or print qq
 s s and eval q s undef or oct xor
 time xor ref print chr int ord lc
 foreach qw y hex alarm chdir kill
 exec return y s gt sin sort split

No literals. At all.

[Yakk]

Hmm?

Code: Select all

my_re = re.compile(RE)
match = my_re.search(string)
if match is None:
  print "didn't find the regular expression"
else:
  print "we matched [%s] in [%s]"%(match.group(), string)


How is perl RE support significantly better than python's?

Perl's advantage is that it comtains a lot of useful, pity constructs. Python's advantage is that it was put together with a bit more care.

Speaking of which, a python version of FizzBuzz... Hmm...

[Aglet]

Python's method-based REs are readable and nice, but the lack of a global variable ($_, in Perl) makes them harder to use. If you want to print a text file on a line-by-line basis using regexes, Perl is easier.

But that might just be because the Python regex tutorial I found was less comprehensible than the Perl one.

[Drostie]

7th place in Java! 134 characters, by revising the switcher script as:

Code: Select all

i%5>0?
    i%3>0 ?
        ""+i :
        "Fizz":
    i%3>0?
        "Buzz":
        "FizzBuzz"

Still working on pruning the last few characters...

[Yakk]

Code: Select all

re1 = re.compile(re_string)
for x in file_by_line:
  match1 = re1.search(x)
  if not( match1 is None):
    print x


Perl1 and 2:

Code: Select all

// 1:
foreach(<file_by_line>) {
  print $_ if (m/re_string/);
}
// 2
while($line = <file_by_line>) {
  print $line if (m/re_string/);
}


Perl is pithy, but that doesn't make it's RE system better.

And speaking of pithy -- Python's % operator is a rather neat trick! Will be important in my FizzBuzz solution...

Sadly, I have python 2.3 which is missing a trinary operator.

An untested python solution:

Code: Select all

print "\n".join(["%s%s%s"%("" if x%3 else "Fizz","" if x%5 else "Buzz","%d"%x if x%15 else "") for x in range(1,101)])


118 characters

A tested one that expands to 126 characters when implemented "for real":

Code: Select all

print "\n".join(map(lambda x:fi(fi("%d"%x,x%5,"Buzz"),x%3,fi("Fizz",x%5,"FizzBuzz")),range(1,101)))


where fi is a hand-coded python 2.3 equivilent to the trinary operator.

[yy2bggggs]

aha, 81 chars:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(printf(i%5?i%3?"%d\n":"Fizz\n":"FizzBuzz\n"+4*!!(i%3),i),i++<100);}

Order of ops to the rescue... 79 chars:

Code: Select all

main(i){while(printf(i%5?i%3?"%d\n":"Fizz\n":"FizzBuzz\n"+i%3*4%8,i),i++<100);}

[Yakk]

yy2bggggs, the results of your solution are undefined.

The compiler can evaluate the second arguement to a function before the first, and thus give you a different value for i in the first arguement than you expect.

[yy2bggggs]

yy2bggggs, the results of your solution are undefined.

The compiler can evaluate the second arguement to a function before the first, and thus give you a different value for i in the first arguement than you expect.

I'm not sure you're parsing this right.

[Yakk]

yy2bggggs, the results of your solution are undefined.

The compiler can evaluate the second arguement to a function before the first, and thus give you a different value for i in the first arguement than you expect.

I'm not sure you're parsing this right.

Gah -- you are right. I got LISPed.

[Cosmologicon]

Darn. I thought for sure I could improve on yy2bggggs's C routine by using the return value of printf. It would have worked if 100 weren't divisible by 5!

Code: Select all

main(i){for(;4^printf(i%5?i%3?"%d\n":"Fizz\n":"FizzBuzz\n"+i%3*4%8,i);i++);}


Then again, the rules don't say you can't print out other stuff....

[themuffinking]

In java, you don't need to add a ""+ to the i in the printout. System.out.println() knows how to handle integers, so that makes it:

Code: Select all

class A{
   public static void main(String[] a){
      for(int i=0;++i<101;)
         System.out.println(
            i%15<1 ? "FizzBuzz" :
               i%3<1 ? "Fizz" :
                  i%5<1?"Buzz": i
         );
   }
}

Eliminate the whitespace, of course:

Code: Select all

class A{public static void main(String[] a){for(int i=0;++i<101;)System.out.println(i%15<1?"FizzBuzz":i%3<1?"Fizz":i%5<1?"Buzz":i);}}

[EvanED]

In java, you don't need to add a ""+ to the i in the printout. System.out.println() knows how to handle integers, so that makes it:...

I was all set to say that wouldn't work, but then I tried it. Javac 1.4 gives "incompatible types for ?: neither is a subtype of the other", which is what I expected, but 1.5 and 1.6 returned no error. (I was using this.)

Assuming it works right, that's a pretty spiffy piece of syntactic sugar.

[yy2bggggs]

Then again, the rules don't say you can't print out other stuff....

Seeing as how qualification requires your output to exactly match the correct one, I'm sure this is implied.

[Drostie]

In java, you don't need to add a ""+ to the i in the printout. System.out.println()

Unfortunately, that's not really true. For the compiler used in this competition, the code without the ""+ won't compile. It's not really clear what the error is, but it seems to be that, in Java 1.4 (or whatever their compiler uses), the syntax of A?B:C requires both B and C to return the same type of thing.

So, ""+i it is. Sadly. More modern versions of Java have no problem with ?i:"Stuff"; but old ones do.

[EvanED]

In java, you don't need to add a ""+ to the i in the printout. System.out.println()

Unfortunately, that's not really true. For the compiler used in this competition, the code without the ""+ won't compile. It's not really clear what the error is, but it seems to be that, in Java 1.4 (or whatever their compiler uses), the syntax of A?B:C requires both B and C to return the same type of thing.

This is correct. The reason is that in just about every statically typed languge I know (in fact I think the new ?: behavior may be the *only* exception to this I know), given an expression, every subexpression must have a verifiable type. So for instance, in foo( A ? B : C), A must have a type, B must have a type, and C must have a type, but so must A?B:C. But if B is a string and C is an int, what's the type of A?B:C? Well, it depends on the run time value of A, which means it doesn't have a static type.

The question then becomes, what is Java 1.5 and 1.6 doing? It could notice that B is a string and implicitly call C.toString() (making A?B:C equivalent to A?B:C.toString() ), or it could be really fancy and actually dispatch to the properly overloaded function.

I think it's experiment time...