Reading the coding horror, I just came across the FizzBuzz another time.
The original post is here: Coding Horror: Why Can\'t Programmers.. Program?
For thos
Enumerable.Range(1, 100).ToList().ForEach(i=>Console.WriteLine($"{(i%3*i%5==0?0:i):#;}{i%3:;;Fizz}{i%5:;;Buzz}"));
This answer has it all:
Victory!
I recommend using the ++i instead of the i++ in a for loop because i++ requires a copy to be made ;)
public void DoFizzBuzz()
{
for (int i = 1; i < 101; ++i)
{
if (i % 15 == 0)
Console.WriteLine ("FizzBuzz");
else if (i % 3 == 0)
Console.WriteLine ("Fizz");
else if (i % 5 == 0)
Console.WriteLine ("Buzz");
else
Console.WriteLine (i);
}
}
Obviously this is a bit outside the spirit of the FizzBuzz challenge. But in my benchmark this was the fastest I could make it while single threaded and still terminating at 100. It is semi-unrolled and uses a StringBuilder
. It is approximately three times faster than the standard approach.
const string FIZZ = " Fizz\n";
const string BUZZ = " Buzz\n";
const string FIZZBUZZ = " FizzBuzz\n";
...
var sb = new StringBuilder();
int i = 0;
while(true)
{
sb.Append(i+3);
sb.Append(FIZZ);
sb.Append(i+5);
sb.Append(BUZZ);
sb.Append(i+6);
sb.Append(FIZZ);
sb.Append(i+9);
sb.Append(FIZZ);
sb.Append(i+10);
sb.Append(BUZZ);
if(i+12 > 100)
break;
sb.Append(i+12);
sb.Append(FIZZ);
i+=15;
sb.Append(i);
sb.Append(FIZZBUZZ);
}
Console.Write(sb.ToString());
3rd edit:
Here is one way to "get rid of the bool" from your version (that is replace the for loop in your original question with this):
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
var x = combinations.Where(n => i % n.Item1 == 0);
if (x.Count() == 0)
Console.Write(i);
else
Console.Write(string.Join("",x.Select(e => e.Item2)));
Console.Write(Environment.NewLine);
}
Prior answers:
For a pure C# solution check out Keith Thompson's solution.
using System;
class FizzBuzz {
static void Main() {
for (int n = 1; n <= 100; n ++) {
if (n % 15 == 0) {
Console.WriteLine("FizzBuzz");
}
else if (n % 3 == 0) {
Console.WriteLine("Fizz");
}
else if (n % 5 == 0) {
Console.WriteLine("Buzz");
}
else {
Console.WriteLine(n);
}
}
}
}
I worked a bit on FixBuzz using linq. These are the solutions I came up with -- I believe they represent the best way to express the solution to this problem using Linq. (GitHub)
using System;
using System.Linq;
class FizzBuzz {
static void Main() {
var list = Enumerable.Range(1,100)
.Select(n => {
if (n % 15 == 0) {
return "FizzBuzz";
}
if (n % 3 == 0) {
return "Fizz";
}
if (n % 5 == 0) {
return "Buzz";
}
return n.ToString();
});
foreach(string item in list)
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
}
and the crazy one line version:
using System;
using System.Linq;
class FizzBuzz {
static void Main() {
Console.WriteLine(
String.Join(
Environment.NewLine,
Enumerable.Range(1, 100)
.Select(n => n % 15 == 0 ? "FizzBuzz"
: n % 3 == 0 ? "Fizz"
: n % 5 == 0 ? "Buzz"
: n.ToString())
));
}
}
Did anyone do this one already?
Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Select(x =>
(x % 15 == 0) ? "FIZZBUZZ"
: (x % 5 == 0) ? "BUZZ"
: (x % 3 == 0) ? "FIZZ"
: x.ToString()
)
.ToList()
.ForEach(console.WriteLine);
I think what you're trying to accomplish is a generic solution to FizzBuzz, that will work for any number of number-word combinations.
You have a good start - I think I can answer your questions with this example:
public void DoFizzBuzz()
{
var combinations = new List<Tuple<int, string>>
{
new Tuple<int, string> (3, "Fizz"),
new Tuple<int, string> (5, "Buzz"),
};
Func<int, int, bool> isMatch = (i, comb) => i % comb == 0;
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++)
{
Console.Write(i);
var matchingCombs = combinations.Where(c => isMatch(i, c.Item1)).ToList();
if (matchingCombs.Any())
{
Console.Write(string.Join("", matchingCombs.Select(c => c.Item2)));
}
else
{
Console.Write(i);
}
Console.Write(Environment.NewLine);
}
}
In practice, you would pass combinations
in to the method, but I included it inside just to be concise.