Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #34972

Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java!

Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Date	2016-07-19 05:06 -0700
References	(1 earlier) <nmj00i$jae$1@dont-email.me> <1933e39b-6363-4174-8392-602415a61799@googlegroups.com> <nmj61j$95o$1@dont-email.me> <cc1c596f-a043-4ba7-9e55-b98fc12cc89c@googlegroups.com> <nmjhqe$jj6$1@dont-email.me>
Message-ID	<d30c2b2f-0471-4231-9867-19126e5edc13@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java!
From	Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, July 18, 2016 at 5:31:03 PM UTC-4, Eric Sosman wrote:
>      - Finally, observe that by transforming a correct program from
>        IntStream to `for' loop you produced an *incorrect* program!
>        Faster, yes (even without measurement I'm confident of that),
>        but incorrect nonetheless.  What price "efficiency," hmm?

Who me bad code?  I just tested the code I modified and it runs fine.  It's just missing the print requirement.

public final class FizzBuzz { 
     public static void main(final java.lang.String[] args) { 
         for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { 
                 final StringBuilder result = new StringBuilder(); 
                 if (0 == i % 3) { 
                     result.append("Fizz"); 
                 } 
                 if (0 == i % 5) { 
                     result.append("Buzz"); 
                 } 
                 if (result.length() == 0) { 
                     result.append(i); 
                 } 
                 java.lang.System.out.println( result );
             } 
     } 
}

I ran the IntStream version 3 times with a timer.  It took 5762, 5817, 5826 milliseconds to go through 1 to 1,000,000.
I ran this for loop 1 to 1,000,000 with the same timer 3 times.  It took 5715, 5803, 5685 milliseconds.

So yes it is faster without the fancy IntStream.  Is it worth changing production code?  It would have to be really heavily used to get noticeable savings on the performance.  Is it more readable/maintainable?  I think that is a much more important question when performance is very similar and functionality remains the same.

Thread

Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Daniel Pitts <usenet@coloraura.com> - 2016-07-18 09:26 -0700
  Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 10:10 -0700
    Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-18 14:09 -0400
      Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-07-18 14:00 -0700
        Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-18 17:30 -0400
          Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:06 -0700
            Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-19 08:13 -0400
              Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 05:18 -0700
        Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2016-07-18 21:59 +0000
        Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-07-18 19:51 -0400
  Re: So I did "FizzBuzz", in Java! Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-07-18 19:46 -0400

csiph-web