From: Tim Chase on 6 Aug 2010 22:31 On 08/06/10 15:37, James Mills wrote:> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:28 AM, geremy condra wrote: >> If I had to wait 5 minutes while a candidate tried to solve this >> problem I would not hire them. > > Yes you do raise a valid point. It should really only take > you a mere few seconds or so to write a solution to this. > > More over, it can be done in just a single line of Python. > > 7 if you're not very familiar with Python. While it *can* be done in one line, I'm not sure it's the most legible solution. Though I must say I like this one-line python version: for i in range(1, 101): print ((i%3==0 and 'fizz' or '') + (i%5==0 and 'buzz' or '')) or i (adjust "3" and "5" for your local flavor of fizzbuzz) I'm not sure I'd hire a candidate that proposed this as a solution in earnest, but I'd have fun chatting with them :) -tkc From: Peter Otten on 7 Aug 2010 07:53 Tim Chase wrote: > On 08/06/10 15:37, James Mills wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:28 AM, geremy condra wrote: >>> If I had to wait 5 minutes while a candidate tried to solve this >>> problem I would not hire them. >> >> Yes you do raise a valid point. It should really only take >> you a mere few seconds or so to write a solution to this. >> >> More over, it can be done in just a single line of Python. >> >> 7 if you're not very familiar with Python. > > While it *can* be done in one line, I'm not sure it's the most > legible solution. Though I must say I like this one-line python > version: > > for i in range(1, 101): print ((i%3==0 and 'fizz' or '') + > (i%5==0 and 'buzz' or '')) or i > > (adjust "3" and "5" for your local flavor of fizzbuzz) > > I'm not sure I'd hire a candidate that proposed this as a > solution in earnest, but I'd have fun chatting with them :) You mean you'd go for the candidate who took the conservative approach and got it right: print 1 print 2 print 'Fizz' print 4 print 'Buzz' print 'Fizz' print 7 print 8 print 'Fizz' print 'Buzz' print 11 print 'Fizz' print 13 print 14 print 'FizzBuzz' print 16 print 17 print 'Fizz' print 19 print 'Buzz' print 'Fizz' print 22 print 23 print 'Fizz' print 'Buzz' print 26 print 'Fizz' print 28 print 29 print 'FizzBuzz' print 31 print 32 print 'Fizz' print 34 print 'Buzz' print 'Fizz' print 37 print 38 print 'Fizz' print 'Buzz' print 41 print 42 print 43 print 44 print 'FizzBuzz' print 46 print 47 print 'Fizz' print 49 print 'Buzz' print 'Fizz' print 52 print 53 print 'Fizz' print 'Buzz' print 56 print 'Fizz' print 58 print 59 print 'FizzBuzz' print 61 print 62 print 'Fizz' print 64 print 'Buzz' print 'Fizz' print 67 print 68 print 'Fizz' print 'Buzz' print 71 print 'Fizz' print 73 print 74 print 'FizzBuzz' print 76 print 77 print 'Fizz' print 79 print 'Buzz' print 'Fizz' print 82 print 83 print 'Fizz' print 'Buzz' print 86 print 'Fizz' print 88 print 89 print 'FizzBuzz' print 91 print 92 print 'Fizz' print 94 print 'Buzz' print 'Fizz' print 97 print 98 print 'Fizz' print 'Buzz' Well, almost right, but one error per 100 lines at the first try is near- genius anyway... Peter From: Terry Reedy on 8 Aug 2010 16:49 On 8/7/2010 7:53 AM, Peter Otten wrote: > > You mean you'd go for the candidate who took the conservative approach and > got it right: > > print 1 > print 2 > print 'Fizz' > print 4 > print 'Buzz' > print 'Fizz' > print 7 > print 8 > print 'Fizz' > print 'Buzz' Way too verbose. How about print("1\n2\nFizz\n4\nBuzz\nFizz\n7\n8\nFizz\nBuzz\n etc. -- Terry Jan Reedy From: Peter on 8 Aug 2010 20:28 On Aug 9, 6:49 am, Terry Reedy wrote:> On 8/7/2010 7:53 AM, Peter Otten wrote: > > > > > You mean you'd go for the candidate who took the conservative approach and > > got it right: > > > print 1 > > print 2 > > print 'Fizz' > > print 4 > > print 'Buzz' > > print 'Fizz' > > print 7 > > print 8 > > print 'Fizz' > > print 'Buzz' > > Way too verbose. How about > print("1\n2\nFizz\n4\nBuzz\nFizz\n7\n8\nFizz\nBuzz\n > etc. > > -- > Terry Jan Reedy And to hell with the code being maintainable afterwards? :-) Personally I would FIRE somebody who produced code like this. Assuming I was a manager or in a position to hire (I used to be in a previous life), then I would be looking for somebody who was capable of writing good, solid and MAINTAINABLE code (love those subjective words? :-)). Realistically, if the application is anything other than trivial then it will most likely have somebody poking around in it at some stage who isn't the brightest spark in the firmament. Anybody who produces nice, readable and straight forward code in my books gets the tick of approval. No offence intended, but anybody who tried to prove how "bright" they are by producing the least number of (unmaintainable) lines of code would not get past the first interview - unless they were prepared to sign a contract that guaranteed they would be available to maintain the application for its entire lifecycle. Generally (in my experience) people who write code like this don't hang around long - certainly not long enough to maintain their monstrosity! Peter From: Steven D'Aprano on 8 Aug 2010 20:39 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 17:28:59 -0700, Peter wrote: > On Aug 9, 6:49 am, Terry Reedy wrote: >> On 8/7/2010 7:53 AM, Peter Otten wrote: >> >> > You mean you'd go for the candidate who took the conservative >> > approach and got it right: >> >> > print 1 >> > print 2 >> > print 'Fizz' >> > print 4 >> > print 'Buzz' >> > print 'Fizz' >> > print 7 >> > print 8 >> > print 'Fizz' >> > print 'Buzz' >> >> Way too verbose. How about >> print("1\n2\nFizz\n4\nBuzz\nFizz\n7\n8\nFizz\nBuzz\n etc. >> >> -- >> Terry Jan Reedy > > And to hell with the code being maintainable afterwards? :-) I'm pretty sure both Peter Otten and Terry Reedy were being sarcastic and/ or ironic. -- Steven First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Prev: Smith-Waterman Algorithm in PythonNext: Perl -> Python unpack