Pocket Programming: Learning New Skills Anywhere

Summer is here, and in a few days I'm off on holiday. Aside from the eating, drinking, sleeping, sight-seeing and reading: it may be a good chance to hone my problem solving and Python skills.

I'll be travelling light, taking in the east coast of Spain. So, any coding has to be done in the most portable/light-weight fashion.

Media_httpwwwjoelhugh_geikz

Here is my pocket sized kit list for an ultra-portable programming environment:

This list is weighted towards to those of you with Symbian phones, but most smart phones have some sort of access to a programming language.

The one of the most appealing aspects of this kit: it is super cheap. The phone was "free" on a 1 year £25 p/m contract, the O'Reilly Book is about £6, pen and notebook another three quid: that's a cheap way to learn some valuable skills.

I'm sure there are a ton of alternative setups (Android, Windows Mobile, Palm, I-Phone?). A bare minimum set of requirements could be: a text editor and a web browser capable of parsing JavaScript (this may be possible on not so "smart phones").

If you're using an alternative setup, or have another way to program on the move, please add it to the comments.

Which Language Combination?

I'm trying to be a better programmer. I have been writing and learning as much code as I can, the benefits are a threefold positive feedback loop:

  • Learning is, in itself, very pleasurable (it makes you feel clever, which is nice)
  • New knowledge transfers to, and enhances, existing skills
  • New tools and skills provide a greater resource for providing solutions

But, how does a developer know which skills to learn and which languages are best to learn with? (Assuming that you're learning for fun rather than as a work requirement.)

If Google is a good bench mark (assuming that they can take their pick of the best developers), one requirement (taken from an ad for a Software Engineer) asks for:

Fluency in two or more of C, C++, Java, Shell, PHP, Perl or Python.

If you are specifically aiming for a career at Google then making sure you are fluent in two major languages is probably the way to go, and there is certainly no downside to a developer broadening their skill set. In my experience, each foray into new languages has improved my PHP, and in turn, I feel pretty comfortable in Ruby and Python.

When deciding to learn something new: you could argue that PHP, Ruby, Python, Perl etc... are pretty much different brands of the same tool (procedural, interpreted languages). It's great to have the option to use each, but these languages are not necessarily complimentary. It is unlikely that you would write a system with a combination of PHP, Python and Ruby. But, it is conceivable that you could have a project requiring C, PHP and Erlang skills.

Rather than learning interchangable skills, complementary languages might offer the opportunity to become a more rounded developer:

  • Interpreted, procedural (PHP, Ruby, Python, JS)
  • Compiled, procedural (C/C++, Java)
  • Functional, concurrent (Erlang, Scala, F#)

Assuming that side stepping between similar languages is easier than picking up a completely new concept: it would seem learning these varied skills opens up more possibilities.

Sometimes I worry that by learning a particular, none mainstream, language (like Erlang) I could be backing the "wrong horse". However, bearing in mind my earlier ramblings, there's little downside to picking up a new way of doing things, for example Elang may not prove popular, but the functional approach will give me a head start learning F# or Scala.

This slide from Painless Payment Processing by Erik Stenman points out other benefits of learning more "unusual" languages:

Nice paradox:

The lack of Erlang programmers makes it easier for us to find great programmers.

  • There are many great C and Java programmers, I'm sure, but they are hidden by hordes of mediocre programmers.
  • Programmers who know a functional programming language are often passionate about programming.
  • Passionate programmers makes Great Programmers

Or am I talking nonsense?

Erlang FizzBuzz Showdown (pt2)

In my last post I documented some of the steps involved in building a simple FizzBuzz script in Erlang and compared the code to its equivalents in Python, Ruby and PHP. So far we've simply covered using a tail-recursive function to creat a list of numbers 1-100.

The next problem to tackle is checking whether a number is: just a number, a Fizz (divisible by 3), a Buzz (divisible by 5) or a FizzBuzz (divisible by 3 and 5). As I'm in the habit of using if statements to perform checks (I'm primarily a PHP developer) my first attempt looked like this:

fizzbuzz(I) ->
    if
        ((I rem 3 =:= 0 ) and (I rem 5 =:= 0 )) ->
            fizzbuzz;
        I rem 3 =:= 0 ->
            fizz;
        I rem 5 =:= 0 ->
            buzz;
        true ->
            I
    end.

This works just fine, but isn't a good example of writing Erlang in a functional manner, this is more like imperative programming in style. For example, it is not dissimilar to this python function:

# python

def fizzbuzz(i):
  if i % 3 == 0 and i % 5 == 0:
    return 'Fizzbuzz'
        
  elif i % 3 == 0:
    return 'Fizz'
        
  elif i % 5 == 0:
    return 'Buzz'
        
  else:
    return i

In Erlang (and I assume functional programming in general) Guards rather than if statements are far more appropriate. So, using the multiple entry points for a function and combining them with a guard I ended up with this:

fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 3 == 0, N rem 5 == 0 -> "FizzBuzz";
fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 3 == 0 -> "Fizz";
fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 5 == 0 -> "Buzz";
fizzbuzz(N) -> N.

Once I'd taken on board the functional approach the FizzBuzz function has not lost any readability (if anything this is easier to follow) and has become more compact and efficient. From what I've seen so far: Erlang programs rarely need if statements.

The next stage in the FizzBuzz program is to combine this with my earlier range function and loop through the numbers 1-100. Attempt 1 worked like so:

combine(To) ->
  F = (fun(I) ->  fizzbuzz(I) end),
  lists:map(F,range(1,To,[])).

Again, this works: the function combine takes in the number to be counted up to (e.g. 100), then a Fun is created (basically a mini function that can be passed into other functions as an argument) that is a copy of fizzbuzz, and then uses the inbuilt module/function lists/map to apply it to each number in the list returning a new list with the appropriate changes. But again this can be condensed to make better use of Elang's functional syntax.

combine(To) ->
  [fizzbuzz(X) || X 

The end result is the same but the function now uses a pattern matching/balancing style syntax to produce the new list. The process breaks down like this:
  • [] is the list notation, and using the pipes to separate the two haves of the process ([X || X ) means that the result of the right hand site is passed into the left (as X, formed by breaking the list down X ), forming a new list one element at a time.
  • The input list is formed using the range function on the right.
  • Then the fizzbuzz function processes the incoming elements of the new list on the left.

And that almost concludes my Erlang FizzBuzz program. However, it is returning a list rather than printing one line at a time. This is the module so far:

-module(fizzbuzz).
-export([fizzbuzz/1,range/3,combine/1]).

fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 3 == 0, N rem 5 == 0 -> "FizzBuzz";
fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 3 == 0 -> "Fizz";
fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 5 == 0 -> "Buzz";
fizzbuzz(N) -> N.

range(To,To,List) -> [To|List];
range(From,To,List) when From  range(From, To -1, [To|List]);
range(From,To,List) when From > To -> List.

combine(To) ->
  [fizzbuzz(X) || X 

And being used in the console:


Eshell V5.6.5  (abort with ^G)
1> c(fizzbuzz).
{ok,fizzbuzz}
2> fizzbuzz:combine(100).
[1,2,"Fizz",4,"Buzz","Fizz",7,8,"Fizz","Buzz",11,"Fizz",13,
 14,"FizzBuzz",16,17,"Fizz",19,"Buzz","Fizz",22,23,"Fizz",
 "Buzz",26,"Fizz",28,29|...]


Finally, this can be condensed one last time by turning the range function into a tool for applying the fizzbuzz function to each number recursively, printing the results to the console as it goes:


-module(fb_final).
-export([fizzbuzz/1,fbr/2]).

fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 3 == 0, N rem 5 == 0 ->
  io:format("FizzBuzz\n");

fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 3 == 0 ->
  io:format("Fizz\n");

fizzbuzz(N) when N rem 5 == 0 ->
  io:format("Buzz\n");

fizzbuzz(N) ->
  io:format([integer_to_list(N) | "\n"]).

fbr(To,To) -> fizzbuzz(To);
fbr(From,To) when From  fizzbuzz(From), fbr(From + 1, To).



And with that I'm pretty pleased. The fb_final module makes good use of the functional approach, is concise but still fairly easy to read. In conclusion I'm enjoying Erlang a great deal.

P.S:
There is one last small modification that makes fbr/range reusable allowing higher order functions to be passed into it:


range(To,To,F) -> F(To);
range(From,To,F) when From  F(From), range(From + 1, To,F).


This executes using the following console script (inserting fizzbuzz into range as a higher order function):


Eshell V5.6.5  (abort with ^G)
1> c(fb_final).
{ok,fb_final}
2> fb_final:range(1,15,fun(N) -> fb_final:fizzbuzz(N) end).
1
2
Fizz
4
Buzz
Fizz
7
8
Fizz
Buzz
11
Fizz
13
14
FizzBuzz
ok



Done and dusted! And here are some other ways of getting FizzBuzz done in a functional style.

Erlang FizzBuzz Showdown (Pt 1)

As I've become a little more familiar with Erlang I decided to leave the set text and test myself with a basic (often seen) programming challenge (FizzBuzz) and compare the solution with the languages I'm more familiar with.

FizzBuzz is a pretty simple set of rules (also known as Bizz Buzz) and is used for children's maths, drinking games and as a rather basic test given to programmers during job interviews (although it is so well known that it probably lost its value for this purpose a while back).

The rules (for programmers) are simple:

  • Print a list of numbers 1 - 100
  • If the number is exactly divisible by 3 print "Fizz"
  • If the number is exactly divisible by 5 print "Buzz"
  • If the number is exactly divisible by both 3 and 5 print "FizzBuzz"
  • Otherwise just print the number

Solving the problem breaks down to:

  • Create a range of numbers 1-100
  • Loop through each number and check it against the conditions
  • Print out the result
  • Repeat until 100

So far so simple, it is a pretty straight forward task that can be solved in a broad variety of ways.

Here's how I could achieve this in Python:

for i in range(1,101):
  
  if i % 3 == 0 and i % 5 == 0:
    print 'Fizzbuzz'
        
  elif i % 3 == 0:
    print 'Fizz'
        
  elif i % 5 == 0:
    print 'Buzz'
        
  else:
    print i

And PHP:

foreach (range(1,100) as $i)
{
    if (($i % 5 == 0) && ($i % 3 == 0))
    {
        echo "FizzBuzz\n";
    }
    elseif ($i % 3 == 0)
    {
        echo "Fizz\n";
    }
    elseif ($i % 5 == 0)
    {
        echo "Buzz\n";
    }
    else
    {
        echo "$i\n";
    }
}

Of course there are many variations depending on how short and/or "readable" you'd like it to be.

So, when it came to tackling this problem with Erlang I was a little surprised that I couldn't just launch into it. Approaching this problem functionally is a different kettle of fish. While there are built in functions that can help I chose to ignore them in favour of gaining a little more understanding.

In other languages creating a range of numbers was pretty straight forward and barley registered as a task, in Erlang I needed to think a little harder. There is no for or while loop easily to hand, the solution was a tail-recursive function. It might seem bloated to add this function, but if you compare the same function in Ruby, the Erlang function appears better suited to the task (also using tail recursion in none functional languages causes performance/stack issues so this is more for illustration):

% ERLANG

range(To,To,List) -> List ++ [To];
range(From,To,List) when From  range(From + 1, To, List ++ [From]).
#RUBY

def jRange(from,to,list)
  if from == to
    return list 

Erlang functions can have multiple entry points, so in this case the range function has two entry points:
  • One that accepts two identical values, a list and returns a list with the value added.
  • Another that accepts two different values, a list and adds the first value to the list, then calls the same function (itself) adding one to the first value.

As it matches the incoming conditions there is no need for if or else.

The problem with this loop is that it will go on infinitely if From is greater than To, to cover this we need a guard. This is a simple check that From is less than To:

range(To,To,List) -> [To|List];
range(From,To,List) when From  range(From, To -1, [To|List]).

And now we have an operational "range" function similar to those seen in Python, Ruby and PHP - however, Elang FizzBuzz can use it in various different ways. Another small change was to alter the way the list builds up, using List ++ [From] isn't very efficient and [To|List] does the job more elegantly.

In the next post I'll conclude building a FizzBuzz program (mistakes, solutions and better-practice included), check back tomorrow or subscribe to keep up to date.

Part 2 >>