Fizzbuzz
Posted in programming -Fizzbuzz is about the simplest programming challenge imaginable, but it’s been observed that a surprising number of seemingly experienced programmers choke when told to actually sit down and code it. Of course, telling any programmer this pretty much compels us to sit down and code it just to prove (to ourselves at least) that we can. Since I’ve been tinkering in Erlang, I figured I’d try that. The instructive thing is that even for something this simple, you have to do it differently in Erlang. In fact, it’s surprising to see how differently you end up doing it in Erlang.
So for reference, here’s the Python version:
#!/usr/bin/python
max = 100
for x in range(1,max+1):
if ((x % 5) == 0) and ((x % 3) == 0):
print "fizzbuzz"
elif (x % 3) == 0:
print "fizz"
elif ((x % 5) == 0):
print "buzz"
else:
print x
Here’s my first draft of the Erlang version
#!/usr/local/bin/escript
-mode(compile).
main([]) -> fizzbuzz(1).
fizzbuzz(X) when X > 100 ->
ok;
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 5) == 0) and ((X rem 3) == 0) ->
io:format("fizzbuzz~n"),
fizzbuzz(X + 1);
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 3) == 0) ->
io:format("fizz~n"),
fizzbuzz(X + 1);
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 5) == 0) ->
io:format("buzz~n"),
fizzbuzz(X + 1);
fizzbuzz(X) ->
io:format("~p~n", [X]),
fizzbuzz(X + 1).
So it works, and it uses pattern matching and recursion, but it feels kinda messy. That version is all about the side effects. Let’s split out the printing, and see what we get.
#!/usr/local/bin/escript
-mode(compile).
main([]) ->
Out = fizzbuzz(1, []),
print(Out).
fizzbuzz(X, Out) when X > 100 ->
lists:reverse(Out);
fizzbuzz(X, Out) when ((X rem 3) == 0) and ((X rem 5) == 0) ->
fizzbuzz(X + 1, [fizzbuzz|Out]);
fizzbuzz(X, Out) when (X rem 3) == 0 ->
fizzbuzz(X + 1, [fizz|Out]);
fizzbuzz(X, Out) when (X rem 5) == 0 ->
fizzbuzz(X + 1, [buzz|Out]);
fizzbuzz(X, Out) ->
fizzbuzz(X + 1, [X|Out]).
print([]) -> ok;
print([First|Rest]) ->
io:format("~p~n", [First]),
print(Rest).
Ok, that’s conceptually a bit cleaner, but the code itself actually feels more cluttered. Thinking about it some more, I realize the fizzbuzz function itself isn’t recursive. Each value can be calculated independently. fizzbuzz(6) is fizz, whether it appears in a sequence or not. We have the fizzbuzz calculation mashed together with iterating over a range. Let’s rework that so that the list printing function handles the iteration instead.
#!/usr/local/bin/escript
-mode(compile).
main([]) ->
print_loop(1).
print_loop(I) when I > 100 ->
ok;
print_loop(I) ->
io:format("~p~n", [fizzbuzz(I)]),
print_loop(I + 1).
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 5) == 0) and ((X rem 3) == 0) -> fizzbuzz;
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 3) == 0) -> fizz;
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 5) == 0) -> buzz;
fizzbuzz(X) -> X.
Now the fizzbuzz function itself is very declarative, and the looping is cleaner and simpler. This separation lets us parameterize the function and max value in the print_loop without modifying the fizzbuzz rules. That’s kinda nice.
#!/usr/local/bin/escript
-mode(compile).
main([]) ->
print_loop(fun fizzbuzz/1, 100, 1).
print_loop(_Func, Max, I) when I > Max ->
ok;
print_loop(Func, Max, I) ->
io:format("~p~n", [Func(I)]),
print_loop(Func, Max, I + 1).
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 5) == 0) and ((X rem 3) == 0) -> fizzbuzz;
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 3) == 0) -> fizz;
fizzbuzz(X) when ((X rem 5) == 0) -> buzz;
fizzbuzz(X) -> X.
The end result is about the same number of lines of code as the Python version, so I can’t say that it’s more efficient. But it’s surprisingly different. You can go back and re-write the Python version to have that functional separation, but it doesn’t feel the same.
#!/usr/bin/python
def fizzbuzz(x):
if ((x % 5) == 0) and ((x % 3) == 0):
return "fizzbuzz"
elif (x % 3) == 0:
return "fizz"
elif ((x % 5) == 0):
return "buzz"
else:
return x
max = 100
for x in range(1,max+1):
print fizzbuzz(x)
And would you really? The original Python version looks fine; the second one is actually uglier, with its multiple returns. It’s not just a matter of what’s possible in a language, or what’s more conceptually elegant; it’s what the language can express cleanly and easily, and what’s familiar to its developer community.