Smallest FizzBuzz program

This is really bugging me. Someone posted a golf challenge to write a
smallest FizzBuzz program here:

http://golf.shinh.org/p.rb?FizzBuzz (although the site was down when I
checked it a few minutes ago)

Basically, the challenge is to write the smallest Ruby program that will
print the numbers from 1 to 100 except:

  • substitute Fizz for numbers that are multiples of 3
  • substitute Buzz for numbers that are multiples of 5
  • substitute FizzBuzz for numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 5

Also see:
http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz.html

The winning entry is at 56 bytes and I can’t get below 65 bytes with the
following:

1.upto(100){|i|puts"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

I think if the substring indices could be computed mathematically
instead of logically, it might work, but it’s possible an entirely new
approach is necessary.

It works correctly, so to see acceptable output, just run it.

1
2
Fizz
4
Buzz
Fizz
7
8
Fizz
Buzz
11
Fizz
13
14
FizzBuzz

Can any Ruby guru out there get it down to 56 bytes?

Brian

1.upto(100){|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Shaves off 3 bytes. :slight_smile:

On 3/2/07, Brian A. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

  • substitute FizzBuzz for numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 5
    approach is necessary.
    8

Brian


http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My free Ruby e-book:
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/

1.upto(100){|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Shaves off 3 bytes. :slight_smile:

But it messes with the output a bit…
You can save one byte doing this: 1.upto(?d)

Regards,
Rimantas

On 02.03.2007 17:34, Jeremy McAnally wrote:

1.upto(100){|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Shaves off 3 bytes. :slight_smile:

100.times{|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

another two. :slight_smile:

robert

Rimantas L. wrote:

1.upto(100){|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Shaves off 3 bytes. :slight_smile:

But it messes with the output a bit…
You can save one byte doing this: 1.upto(?d)

Awesome, ASCII value of letter d ! Only 8 more bytes to shave off :slight_smile:

Jeremy McAnally wrote:

1.upto(100){|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Shaves off 3 bytes. :slight_smile:

Thanks, but that breaks the output by adding “”, so it won’t do.

Robert K. wrote:

On 02.03.2007 17:34, Jeremy McAnally wrote:

1.upto(100){|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Shaves off 3 bytes. :slight_smile:

100.times{|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

another two. :slight_smile:

Nope. 100.times is not equivalent to 1.upto(100) - off by one error.

On 02.03.2007 18:00, Rimantas L. wrote:

1.upto(100){|i|p"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Shaves off 3 bytes. :slight_smile:

But it messes with the output a bit…
You can save one byte doing this: 1.upto(?d)

?d.times{|i|puts"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

Hm…

robert

On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Robert K. wrote:

?d.times{|i|puts"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

This approach does 0…99 though… :frowning:
-Mat

On Mar 2, 11:06 am, Brian A. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

  • substitute FizzBuzz for numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 5

    Can any Ruby guru out there get it down to 56 bytes?

55 bytes:
1.upto(?d){|i,x|i%3<1&&x=:Fizz;puts i%5<1?"#{x}Buzz":i}

Replace ?d with 100 if you want 56 bytes :slight_smile:

On 02.03.2007 18:22, Mat S. wrote:

On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Robert K. wrote:

?d.times{|i|puts"FizzBuzz#{i}"[i%3<1?0:i%5<1?4:8,i%15<1?8:4]}

This approach does 0…99 though… :frowning:

Darn. Golf is just not my sport - never was. :slight_smile:

robert

Ummm… funny… I see 9 and 12 in the output when I ran this :slight_smile:

1.upto(?d){|i,x| i%3<1&&x=:Fizz;puts (i%3<1||i%5<1)?"#{x}Buzz":i} is
back up to 65. Shame.

vsv wrote:

  • substitute Buzz for numbers that are multiples of 5
  • substitute FizzBuzz for numbers that are multiples of both 3 and 5

    Can any Ruby guru out there get it down to 56 bytes?

55 bytes:
1.upto(?d){|i,x|i%3<1&&x=:Fizz;puts i%5<1?"#{x}Buzz":i}

Replace ?d with 100 if you want 56 bytes :slight_smile:

Interesting. But it doesn’t produce proper output :frowning:

On Mar 2, 2:21 pm, “Kyle S.” removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Ummm… funny… I see 9 and 12 in the output when I ran this :slight_smile:

it is my fault, last second optimization is always wrong
(my lunch is too short and I can’t use ruby in the office :frowning: ),
best I can get if 58 chars:

1.upto(?d){|i,x|i%3<1&&x=:Fizz;puts i%5<1?"#{x}Buzz":x||i}

hope it works OK :slight_smile:

On 3/3/07, Brian A. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Nice work. I removed ,x from |i,x| on a whim and it still works - 57
bytes! (you have to count file size which as an EOF char)

1.upto(?d){|i|i%3<1&&x=:Fizz;puts i%5<1?"#{x}Buzz":x||i}

Slight variant, though sadly the same length:

1.upto(?d){|i|puts ["%sBuzz"%x=[:Fizz][i%3]][i%5]||x||i}

martin

vsv wrote:

Nice work. I removed ,x from |i,x| on a whim and it still works - 57
bytes! (you have to count file size which as an EOF char)

1.upto(?d){|i|i%3<1&&x=:Fizz;puts i%5<1?"#{x}Buzz":x||i}

On 3/2/07, Martin DeMello removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

martin

1.upto(?d){|i|p ["%sBuzz"%x=[:Fizz][i%3]][i%5]||x||i}

Code golfing is against my religious beliefs however.


Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

On 3/3/07, Rick DeNatale removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

1.upto(?d){|i|puts ["%sBuzz"%x=[:Fizz][i%3]][i%5]||x||i}

martin

1.upto(?d){|i|p ["%sBuzz"%x=[:Fizz][i%3]][i%5]||x||i}

Code golfing is against my religious beliefs however.
good decision :wink: 'cause you are cheating, the output format of p is
not what is required :frowning:
Robert

On 3/2/07, Robert D. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

On 3/3/07, Rick DeNatale removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

1.upto(?d){|i|p ["%sBuzz"%x=[:Fizz][i%3]][i%5]||x||i}

Code golfing is against my religious beliefs however.
good decision :wink: 'cause you are cheating, the output format of p is
not what is required :frowning:
Robert

And here I could have sworn that I’d actually tried that very code in
irb.

That’s why I’m against code golfing, rots the brain! :wink:


Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/