FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpriseEdition

by hglaser • 12 years ago

135 49 12 years ago

github.com

jdludlow• 12 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5395215

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8046186

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6712425

archgoon• 12 years ago

Yes, but since then, there has been a continual stream of updates, unit tests (shockingly, the original version had ZERO unit tests), expanded support for a variety of IDEs, and better code structure.

Also, they author finally got around to actually providing a proper pom.xml file.

Check the commit history for details.

If you're interested in contributing, there's definitely room for expanding the unit test coverage, and also instrumenting the build process to support a code coverage tool such as EMMA or Coberture. Also, I don't believe that the code has undergone a security audit, and I don't see any code reviews for many of the commits, which is distressing.

And documentation! The code does not support javadoc, and in fact, there are only two comments in the entirety of the nearly 1500 line code base!

insin• 12 years ago

And documentation! The code does not support javadoc, and in fact, there are only two comments in the entirety of the nearly 1500 line code base!

This is just _so_ non-compliant with Best Practices that it reveals itself too easily as a parody.

Each class should at least have the default Eclipse comment telling you how to change the template for a new class file, and most methods should have auto-generated JavaDoc for the first version of the method which was written years ago, with nothing filled in.

SmileyKeith• 12 years ago

This was a lot funnier before GitHub introduced the current folder mechanics. Since you previously had to dig into each level.

DAddYE• 12 years ago

And is not even the longest one seen so far in java land

    /src/main/java/com/seriouscompany/business/java/fizzbuzz/packagenamingpackage

adambatkin• 12 years ago

This makes me hurt inside.

imron• 12 years ago

I love that there is a commit to 'remove redundant import'. https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Being enterprise software, the last thing they need in the codebase is clutter.

syncsynchalt2• 12 years ago

Well, someone probably had a stretch goal to clean up some of the static analysis warnings.

ahmacleod3• 12 years ago

I was trained in Java, but I never had to do any Big Enterprise Java coding. Can anyone summarize why and when this style of development began?

slashnull• 12 years ago

I was briefly exposed to this doctrine at school, so I hope dropping the following buzzwords help: POJO, Java Persistent API, Java Enterprise Beans, Gang of Four Design Patterns

patio11• 12 years ago

A combination of wasteful architecture astronomy and legitimate need to divvy up absolutely mammoth line-of-business applications among teams with hundreds of members operating for years with wildly varying skill levels, often on different subsystems from different physical locations, with billions of dollars on the line. You can't let the least senior programmer in the Melbourne office bring down the bank if he screws up with something, so instead you make it virtually impossible for him to touch anything than the single DAO which he is assigned to, and you can conclusively prove that changing that only affects the operation of the one report for the admin screen of a tier 3 analyst in the risk management group for trans-Pacific shipping insurance policies sold to US customers.

The tradeoff is, historically, that you're going to have to hire a team of seven developers, three business analysts, and a project manager to do what is, honestly speaking, two decent engineers worth of work if they were working in e.g. Rails. This is a worthwhile tradeoff for many enterprises, as they care about risk much, much, much more than the salary bill.

(I spent several years in the Big Freaking Enterprise Java Web Applications salt mines. These days I generally work in Rails, and vastly prefer it for aesthetic and productivity reasons, but I'm at least intellectually capable of appreciating the advantages that the Java stack is sold as bringing to users. You can certainly ship enterprise apps in Rails, too, but "the enterprise" has a process which works for shipping Java apps and applying the same development methodology to e.g. a Rails app would result in a highly effective gatling gun for shooting oneself in the foot.)

userbinator4• 12 years ago

In other words, the bureaucracy of the code reflects the environment it was developed in.

ahmacleod3• 12 years ago

Thanks, that's what I was looking for.

raverbashing• 12 years ago

I wonder how did this evolve to be...

I remember (vaguely) the beginnings of Java, but not how it did end up in Enterprise and why it was loved so much there.

fsloth• 12 years ago

I never understood what the 'risk' in architecture designs meant until your comment made me realize it is indeed meant for teams where you really cannot trust all team members (shudders). Thanks, I see now more clearly.

NhanH• 12 years ago

Why didn't the enterprise go with the "microservices architecture" (not current usage of microservices, but you get the idea). Considering that SOA was actually originally from Java land, wouldn't the idea of every team with their own code base more appealing to the bureaucracy? The programming version of compartment.

gumby• 12 years ago

"architecture astronomy" is my new funny-yet-insightful phrase of the week. Thanks!

hhandoko• 12 years ago

I spent several years in the Big Freaking Enterprise Java Web Applications salt mines [...]

I had to re-read your comment twice as I thought that there exists an OTS ERP for salt production.

PS. The company I work for actually grows salt.

syncsynchalt2• 12 years ago

They rejected my pull request to migrate their markdown docs to docbook.

https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

jarcane• 12 years ago

While we appreciate the careful crafting that went into this pull request and regard XML as an excellent choice for documenting projects of Enterprise caliber, we feel that moving to Docbook version 5 is a rather hasty move. The version is brand new, and we are unable to convince stakeholders about its Enterprise-grade integrity and long-term prospects as a documentation platform.

Brilliant.

GilbertErik• 12 years ago

I don't get why all you kids love these obfuscation competitions. ;-)

peeters• 12 years ago

The sad part is that there is actually an advantage to abstracting out the printing of fizz and buzz, and that is it will be easier to test. But the authors didn't even swap in a testable printing strategy, they just changed System.out.

alxndr• 12 years ago

Send a pull request!

coldtea• 12 years ago

Some things it's better NOT to test, rather than create an overengineered mess to facilitate testing.

Sometimes a fuzzbuzz is just a fuzzbuzz. A.k.a: KISS, YAGNI, etc...

101914• 12 years ago

"... necessary tools such as if-/else-statements and loops"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Array_programming

eklavya• 12 years ago

ahahahahahahahahaha nice :D

foobarian• 12 years ago

Enterprise programming is like Hadoop. Huge startup overhead, but once workers start up, progress shoots up at a pace faster than possible with less thought out systems.

userbinator4• 12 years ago

The sad part is that many Java programmers would probably not realise that this is supposed to be a parody, because there are even more ridiculous-looking things in real, "production" Java code:

http://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/apidocs/org/apache/xmlrpc/server...

http://docs.spring.io/spring-framework/docs/2.5.x/api/org/sp... (this one is somewhat famous - maybe it wins the "most number of design patterns in a class name" award?)

The impression I get whenever I come across code like this is that its authors were more interested in "creating architecture" than solving a real problem - and creating many classes containing short methods whose only function is to create more objects or pass existing ones around is a particularly insidious form of busy-work.

GNU Hello (http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/ ) is basically the same sort of thing done to a Hello World program.

nfm• 12 years ago

Don't forget InternalFrameInternalFrameTitlePaneInternalFrameTitlePaneMaximizeButtonPainter (http://javadoc.bugaco.com/com/sun/java/swing/plaf/nimbus/Int...)

ahmacleod3• 12 years ago

"Convenient proxy factory bean superclass for proxy factory beans that create only singletons."

HCIdivision17• 12 years ago

I have the urge to find out if a well (or badly?) tuned Markov chain can generate functional enterprise java code; I know exactly enough java to be sure all those words in that order actually mean something, but not nearly enough to have any notion what, precisely, that is.

modarts• 12 years ago

Convenient

WasSlowbanned• 12 years ago

Verbose way to express that a lot of enterprise Java code is verbose. I wish I had as much free time.

developer13• 12 years ago

The main thing I look for with FizzBuzz solutions in general is how many modulus operators are used. The junior end of the spectrum tends to use four (% 5 && % 3; % 5; % 3), while intermediate/seasoned developers will either use three (% 15; % 5; % 3), or two (storing % 5 and % 3 in variables, then comparing the combinations).

My personal preference in terms of demonstrating maintainable code is using two modulus operations with variables. However, I fully understand the argument that an additional % 15 is preferable compared to the overhead of storing two variables on each iteration. Both are valid approaches IMO, and the debate can roar on for eternity. Micro-optimizations and whatnot.

I just don't like to see four modulus operations, which IMO shows a lack of basic willingness or ability to refactor while coding. It's fine to initially write the four modulus operations, but if someone doesn't immediately catch the duplication and do something about it, it screams "I write code until it works and then move on without cleaning anything up."

Strangely enough, only once have I seen someone use the % 15 optimization and add a short comment along the lines of "// least common multiple, divisible by both 3 and 5". Spotting the optimization is nice; placing a short comment explaining why % 15 when the test is about % 5 and % 3 is a nice touch. Explains something that might not be immediately obvious to the next person coming to the code.

Aside: it astounds me how many people, when asked to write a short snippet of code during an interview, have basic formatting problems and inconsistent code style. I've seen two lines of code inside an if() block indented at different levels, with no excuse for "different opinions on formatting". Not a wrapped line continued on the next, but just two simple statements inexcusably indented at say 8 and 12 spaces. Don't call us, we'll call you...

developer13• 12 years ago

I forgot to mention the variation where you start with an empty string, and % 3 to append 'Fizz' then % 5 to append 'Buzz'. This is also an instant pass in my book (two modulus, no calculation variables), though I don't personally care for the "coincidence" that for this specific problem the two conditions combined happen to provide the end result.

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

function_seven• 12 years ago

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.

userbinator4• 12 years ago

How many zero-modulus solutions (and still using a loop, not just a long precomputed string) have you seen? In my experience, this is the rarest type. Of those who can write a correct FizzBuzz (which is already a pretty small fraction of the total candidates), I like to ask "how would you do this without any modulus" and very few of them can easily see the pattern that makes this possible.

Aside: it astounds me how many people, when asked to write a short snippet of code during an interview, have basic formatting problems and inconsistent code style.

If this is being done on paper or an absolutely "non-IDE" text editor then it's probably someone dependent on an IDE to do the right formatting for them. If they still do this in an auto-formatting IDE, it's probably a sign that they have no good idea of the structure/flow of the code.

detaro• 12 years ago

What is the "optimal" answer you are looking for if you ask to solve it without modulus? Build modulus by hand, or using additional resetting counter variables?

mdpm• 12 years ago

Why would you need more than one?

(my version - https://gist.github.com/vai/4647768 )

lostnbored• 12 years ago

Here is an implementation in Python with only one operator

  # Inputs
  >>> i = range(1, 100)
  >>> d = [(15, 'FizzBuzz'), (5, 'Buzz'), (3, 'Fizz')]

  # Let's define some lambdas - calculation, test, reduction
  >>> c = lambda x, y: y[1] if (x % y[0] == 0) else x
  >>> t = lambda a, b:  a if type(a) is str else b
  >>> r = lambda e: reduce(t, e)

  # Now process
  >>> map(r, map(lambda x: map(lambda f: c(x, f), d), i))

jonah• 12 years ago

"Enterprise-strength" stack trace: https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptisteQueru/posts/9oHHUMpwYhG

FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition

Related Stories