Live data from Hacker News

Fizz Buzz in Tensorflow

joelgrus.com

81–85 of 85 posts

Re: Fizz Buzz in Tensorflow

#81
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not over-engineering. Defining a couple of functions to solve it would be over-engineering, like offloading Fizz to it's own function, Buzz to another one etc. Anything (deliberately) more is just comedy.

Training a neural network to solve fizzbuzz is over-engineering, fun over-engineering, but over-engineering none the less.

Depends on the position no? If you are looking for a developer sure. But if you are looking for an engineer, creative solutions are a plus.

Re: Fizz Buzz in Tensorflow

#83
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were a real situation, I wouldn't have, he over-engineered the shit out of it and while cool, I prefer devs who can solve simple problems simply; they get more work done for the price.

Well, when you give a hilariously bad interview question...

Yeah, hopefully this kind of question is handled in a phone screen before bringing them in.

Re: Fizz Buzz in Tensorflow

#84
post #76
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my friends failed an interview out of college where they asked him fizz buzz, and [using python] he created an array [list(range(1,101))] and then overwrote multiples of 3 with "fizz" multiples of 5 with "buzz" and multiples of 15 with "fizzbuzz." Because it was an unconventional solution, the interviewer didn't like it.

That's exactly how I'd do it! What's supposed to be the better way? Modulo/division by three and five?

    for x in xrange(1,101):
        if not x % 3:
            print "Fizz",
        if not x % 5:
            print "Buzz",
        if (x % 3) and (x % 5):
            print x
        else:
            print ""

Re: Fizz Buzz in Tensorflow

#85
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nor representative of Java as used outside enterprise development. It isn't? I've turned down a couple of sweet gigs, at times when I really needed the comfort of work-group structure and maybe even a pay check, because I assumed that (based on my reading) it was all like that. I knew from history, back in the days when it was called Oak that it was a pretty delightful language. Then WS-* and Enterprise OO happened…

I write NLP software in Java and we don't have any of that crap. We have had a couple devs pass through from that world, but we have largely avoided any of the architecture astronaut crap that plagues enterprise development. It's a shame that the name "Java" has become synonymous with it, since it really isn't a bad language (as of Java 7, at least).

Why is Java 8 even worse though? It supposedly introduces several mechanisms to reduce redundancy?
Post reply on HN