ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

PkmnQ wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

bump

Python 3.9.5, 65 chars, and 65 bytes??

for a in range(100):print('Fizz'*(a%3//2)+'Buzz'*(a%5//4) or a+1)

breakdown:

for a in range(1, 100):  #numbers from 1 to 100
print()                  #duh
'Fizz'*(a%3//2)          #weird hack that adds one "Fizz" if a is divisible by three
+'Buzz'*(a%5//4)         #ditto
or a+1                   #my new favourite trick. if the rest of the string is empty (which happens when the number is not divisible by 3 or 5), the string is interpreted as False, which causes the string to be equal to a+1, because a+1 is True (I think)

demo of that last trick:

>>> a = 5
>>> 'abc'*(int(a==5))or'xyz'
'abc'
>>> a += 1
>>> 'abc'*(int(a==5))or'xyz'
'xyz'

You can shave off one byte by removing the space before the or. Also, Pyth.
Pyth, 34 chars/bytes

V100|+*"Fizz"/%N3 2*"Buzz"/%N5 4hN

It's basically the same as the Python solution, but in Pyth. Of course, it isn't very interesting, so I'm actually working on a more interesting one in a different programming language.

this is still the shortest :o

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

for i=1,100do print(i%15==0and"FizzBuzz"or (i%3==0and"Fizz"or(i%5==0and"Buzz"or i)))end

save 5 bytes by removing other unnecessary spaces (at least i’m pretty sure those are unnecessary, assuming syntax is like python’s)

I tested it at https://lua.org/demo.html and it didn't work. didn't know you could do that in python. I thought python's syntax was supposed to make your code look clearer, why would they let you do that?
oh, looks like they will eventually remove that feature anyways [/offtopic]

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

where did they say they would remove it

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

where did they say they would remove it

in the link I provided: "If [sic]* future releases it will be changed to syntax warning, and finally to a syntax error."
*I think they mean “In”

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

where did they say they would remove it

in the link I provided: "If [sic]* future releases it will be changed to syntax warning, and finally to a syntax error."
*I think they mean “In”

what’s “it”?

Deprecation warning is now emitted when compiling previously valid syntax if the numeric literal is immediately followed by a keyword (like in 0in x). If future releases it will be changed to syntax warning, and finally to a syntax error. To get rid of the warning and make the code compatible with future releases just add a space between the numeric literal and the following keyword.

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

gosoccerboy5 wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

where did they say they would remove it

in the link I provided: "If [sic]* future releases it will be changed to syntax warning, and finally to a syntax error."
*I think they mean “In”

what’s “it”?

full quote:

Deprecation warning is now emitted when compiling previously valid syntax if the numeric literal is immediately followed by a keyword (like in 0in x). If future releases it will be changed to syntax warning, and finally to a syntax error. To get rid of the warning and make the code compatible with future releases just add a space between the numeric literal and the following keyword.

SonicFanX123_321 wrote:

0
1
2
Fizz
4
Buzz
Fizz
7
8
9
Buzz
11
Fizz
13
14
FizzBuzz

hello_smile wrote:

Windows:

# a.bat
type a.bat

Bourne-Again Shell:

# a.sh
cat a.sh

TheSecondGilbert wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

Windows:

# a.bat
type a.bat

Bourne-Again Shell:

# a.sh
cat a.sh

that is not fizzbuzz

hello_smile wrote:

TheSecondGilbert wrote:

hello_smile wrote:

Windows:

# a.bat
type a.bat

Bourne-Again Shell:

# a.sh
cat a.sh

that is not fizzbuzz

What is?

NanoRook wrote:

Every post here is inherently flawed. None of these code snippets would ever fit into a professional production environment. I invite you all to browse FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition and improve your code forthwith.