Re:FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition
by function_seven on Sunday December 21, 2014 @05:07AM
(#8779417)
I know exactly what you mean by the "coincidence" and how taking advantage of it seems off somehow, but I suspect the original problem was written with that solution in mind.
Re:FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition
by developer1 on Sunday December 21, 2014 @05:35AM
(#8779442)
Other reasons that solution puts me off a little:
1. You have a dangling check for empty string at the end to set to the current number if the string is empty after the Fizz/Buzz conditions. An "else" clause disguised as an "if" clause.
2. It's just messier to understand. "If % 3, append Fizz; if % 5, append Buzz" has four different outcomes: neither matches, first matches, second matches, both match. A newcomer to the code has to mentally separate out all possibilities (which basically requires re-scanning the same code four times). Whereas the "if, elseif, elseif, else" can be read over and understood with a single scan.
Then again it is FizzBuzz and not FizzBuzzMozz, where numbers divisible by both 3 and 5 produce a string that cannot be concatenated by the individual 3 and 5. So to be fair, this solution is perfectly valid. :p