Streem – a new programming language from Matz

Post by saraid216 » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 9:27 PM UTC

Legion wrote: post #48

masukomi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just because 15 HAPPENS to be a concatenation of the output of 3 and the output of 5 today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. If I said "say Fizz for multiples of 3, Buzz for multiples of 5, and 'this is a silly coding problem' for multiples of 3 and 5 then you'd have to rewrite your code. Some of us know that clients ALWAYS change their minds, specs are rarely equivalent to the end result, and code against future cha…

This is absolutely true for real-world coding. However, for the purposes of an exercise, I think the fact that 15 was chosen was not an accident, but is part of the exercise. Does the coder recognize the relationship between the multiples, and recognize the ability to optimize by removing an extraneous comparison? It's kind of a trivial test for that sort of recognition, but anything as small as FizzBuzz is going to…

Post by ssmoot » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 9:50 PM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #129

ssmoot wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure why Scala is so obsessed with it, since it's used for so many featurse You might check out http://stackoverflow.com/a/8001065/3614122 . The interesting thing (to me) is that the majority of those are actually the same feature (lifting functions). It's just such a powerful/flexible one that it's often misinterpreted as an entirely new thing in different contexts. ary.map(_ * 2) Is no different than: val…

Your last example code is missing a closing-brace. I know no Scala, though, so I'm actually not sure where it should go.

Post by qubitcoder » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 10:07 PM UTC

icedog wrote: post #84

dragonwriter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, its more direct in that, while it increases the number of branches, it minimizes the number of statements executed on any branch. It's also the solution that maps most directly to the problem statement, and, absent a strong technical reason to do otherwise, a direct mapping from requirements to code is a good thing.

I disagree that it maps most directly to the problem statement. You're performing a common factor computation in your mind, which may be more difficult given numbers other than 3 and 5. In my opinion, pattern matching offers the most direct solution and comes with an abundance of compiler optimizations. Here's an example in Rust... for i in range(1i, 101) { match (i % 3, i % 5) { (0, 0) => println!("Fizzbuzz"), (0, _…

  fizzBuzz n 
     | n `mod` 15 == 0 = "FizzBuzz"
     | n `mod` 3  == 0 = "Fizz"
     | n `mod` 5  == 0 = "Buzz"
     | otherwise       = show n

  main = mapM_ (print . fizzBuzz) [1..100]

Post by masukomi » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 10:19 PM UTC

Doji wrote: post #43

masukomi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just because 15 HAPPENS to be a concatenation of the output of 3 and the output of 5 today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. If I said "say Fizz for multiples of 3, Buzz for multiples of 5, and 'this is a silly coding problem' for multiples of 3 and 5 then you'd have to rewrite your code. Some of us know that clients ALWAYS change their minds, specs are rarely equivalent to the end result, and code against future cha…

For any implementation you can manufacture an example which will require a person to re-structure their code. Additionally, using %15 is not DRY. If the spec changes from saying "Fizz" on multiples of 3 to saying "Fizz" on multiples of 4, then you will have to also update 15->20. If you forget to do this, you have a bug. The correct implementation is dependent on the problem's context, and such context is not availab…

Post by mden » Thu, Dec 11, 2014, 10:32 PM UTC

pcmonk wrote: post #26

vessenes wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose it's a style issue as to whether an extra mod is better than checking if one of the triggers has passed. I would propose it's more DRY to do it the short way though.

It's not any shorter. The extra check as to whether or not to print the line break cancels out the mod 15 check. In my opinion, it's cleaner to have three conditionals of the same type than two checking mods and a third checking the OR of the first two. Of course, it can be actually shorter with a goto.