Make Project Euler 27 solution idiomatic Ruby The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results...

FPGA - DIY Programming

Delete all lines which don't have n characters before delimiter

Falsification in Math vs Science

slides for 30min~1hr skype tenure track application interview

What is the meaning of the verb "bear" in this context?

Can one be advised by a professor who is very far away?

What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?

How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?

Can a rogue use sneak attack with weapons that have the thrown property even if they are not thrown?

Looking for Correct Greek Translation for Heraclitus

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

If I score a critical hit on an 18 or higher, what are my chances of getting a critical hit if I roll 3d20?

Have you ever entered Singapore using a different passport or name?

Is flight data recorder erased after every flight?

The difference between dialogue marks

Are there incongruent pythagorean triangles with the same perimeter and same area?

Feature engineering suggestion required

Aging parents with no investments

Who coined the term "madman theory"?

What is the closest word meaning "respect for time / mindful"

Right tool to dig six foot holes?

What did it mean to "align" a radio?

Identify boardgame from Big movie

Resizing object distorts it (Illustrator CC 2018)



Make Project Euler 27 solution idiomatic Ruby



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InGenetic algorithm for Clever Algorithms projectOutputting a .txt file from a .csv fileValidating a password formatRuby Koans' Greed TaskRuby-ize for loop - counting all the n-digit numbers that contain the digit 5 anywhereProject Euler #11 in Ruby and some IterationsProject Euler 40: directly calculate digits of Champernowne's constantFinding if sequential numbers for total existsProject Euler Problem #41Conditional merge with Ruby to include a parameter if it hasn't been includedFind indices of first pair of numbers that sums to zeroDetermines whether a number is a power of 2Most common letter in string, trying to use idiomatic Ruby





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







7












$begingroup$


I learned to program in Java and C# and in my free time I am using Ruby because it is fun. Unfortunately I have the feeling that I write Ruby code like I am making Java or C# code. I have learned to use regex instead of strings for comparison, using each instead of for-loops, keeping method names lowercase, and how to use code blocks (which are quite similar to lambda expressions in C#).



I would love to improve the Rubiness of my code and I hope you would be willing to give me one or more pointers on a piece of code I made. It answers Project Euler problem 27.



class Integer
def prime?
return false if self < 1
2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
return false if self % i == 0
end
true
end
end

def get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
primes = []
still_all_primes = true
n = 0
while still_all_primes
result = n**2 + a*n + b
if result.prime? then
primes << result
else
still_all_primes = false
end
n += 1
end
primes.size
end

def get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
max_product = 0
max_primes = 0
-999.upto(1000) do |a|
-999.upto(1000) do |b|
primes = get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
if primes > max_primes then
max_primes = primes
max_product = a*b
end
end
end
max_product
end

start = Time.now
answer = get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()

puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


I think I can improve on the if-then statement and write it more concise, and also the two "upto-loops" where I first declare the variables max_primes and max_product can be written in a more Ruby-way I am sure.



I would be very grateful if you could let me know how to write more like Ruby!



Links that ask similar questions which I am reading in the meantime:




  • Advice on making ruby code more ruby-like

  • Ruby method return values - how to be more Ruby-like?

  • How to make my script nicer / more Ruby?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$



















    7












    $begingroup$


    I learned to program in Java and C# and in my free time I am using Ruby because it is fun. Unfortunately I have the feeling that I write Ruby code like I am making Java or C# code. I have learned to use regex instead of strings for comparison, using each instead of for-loops, keeping method names lowercase, and how to use code blocks (which are quite similar to lambda expressions in C#).



    I would love to improve the Rubiness of my code and I hope you would be willing to give me one or more pointers on a piece of code I made. It answers Project Euler problem 27.



    class Integer
    def prime?
    return false if self < 1
    2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
    return false if self % i == 0
    end
    true
    end
    end

    def get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
    primes = []
    still_all_primes = true
    n = 0
    while still_all_primes
    result = n**2 + a*n + b
    if result.prime? then
    primes << result
    else
    still_all_primes = false
    end
    n += 1
    end
    primes.size
    end

    def get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
    max_product = 0
    max_primes = 0
    -999.upto(1000) do |a|
    -999.upto(1000) do |b|
    primes = get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
    if primes > max_primes then
    max_primes = primes
    max_product = a*b
    end
    end
    end
    max_product
    end

    start = Time.now
    answer = get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()

    puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


    I think I can improve on the if-then statement and write it more concise, and also the two "upto-loops" where I first declare the variables max_primes and max_product can be written in a more Ruby-way I am sure.



    I would be very grateful if you could let me know how to write more like Ruby!



    Links that ask similar questions which I am reading in the meantime:




    • Advice on making ruby code more ruby-like

    • Ruby method return values - how to be more Ruby-like?

    • How to make my script nicer / more Ruby?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      7












      7








      7





      $begingroup$


      I learned to program in Java and C# and in my free time I am using Ruby because it is fun. Unfortunately I have the feeling that I write Ruby code like I am making Java or C# code. I have learned to use regex instead of strings for comparison, using each instead of for-loops, keeping method names lowercase, and how to use code blocks (which are quite similar to lambda expressions in C#).



      I would love to improve the Rubiness of my code and I hope you would be willing to give me one or more pointers on a piece of code I made. It answers Project Euler problem 27.



      class Integer
      def prime?
      return false if self < 1
      2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
      return false if self % i == 0
      end
      true
      end
      end

      def get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
      primes = []
      still_all_primes = true
      n = 0
      while still_all_primes
      result = n**2 + a*n + b
      if result.prime? then
      primes << result
      else
      still_all_primes = false
      end
      n += 1
      end
      primes.size
      end

      def get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
      max_product = 0
      max_primes = 0
      -999.upto(1000) do |a|
      -999.upto(1000) do |b|
      primes = get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
      if primes > max_primes then
      max_primes = primes
      max_product = a*b
      end
      end
      end
      max_product
      end

      start = Time.now
      answer = get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()

      puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


      I think I can improve on the if-then statement and write it more concise, and also the two "upto-loops" where I first declare the variables max_primes and max_product can be written in a more Ruby-way I am sure.



      I would be very grateful if you could let me know how to write more like Ruby!



      Links that ask similar questions which I am reading in the meantime:




      • Advice on making ruby code more ruby-like

      • Ruby method return values - how to be more Ruby-like?

      • How to make my script nicer / more Ruby?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I learned to program in Java and C# and in my free time I am using Ruby because it is fun. Unfortunately I have the feeling that I write Ruby code like I am making Java or C# code. I have learned to use regex instead of strings for comparison, using each instead of for-loops, keeping method names lowercase, and how to use code blocks (which are quite similar to lambda expressions in C#).



      I would love to improve the Rubiness of my code and I hope you would be willing to give me one or more pointers on a piece of code I made. It answers Project Euler problem 27.



      class Integer
      def prime?
      return false if self < 1
      2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
      return false if self % i == 0
      end
      true
      end
      end

      def get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
      primes = []
      still_all_primes = true
      n = 0
      while still_all_primes
      result = n**2 + a*n + b
      if result.prime? then
      primes << result
      else
      still_all_primes = false
      end
      n += 1
      end
      primes.size
      end

      def get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
      max_product = 0
      max_primes = 0
      -999.upto(1000) do |a|
      -999.upto(1000) do |b|
      primes = get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b)
      if primes > max_primes then
      max_primes = primes
      max_product = a*b
      end
      end
      end
      max_product
      end

      start = Time.now
      answer = get_product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()

      puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


      I think I can improve on the if-then statement and write it more concise, and also the two "upto-loops" where I first declare the variables max_primes and max_product can be written in a more Ruby-way I am sure.



      I would be very grateful if you could let me know how to write more like Ruby!



      Links that ask similar questions which I am reading in the meantime:




      • Advice on making ruby code more ruby-like

      • Ruby method return values - how to be more Ruby-like?

      • How to make my script nicer / more Ruby?







      ruby primes mathematics programming-challenge






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:40









      Community

      1




      1










      asked Apr 19 '14 at 16:10









      Erwin RooijakkersErwin Rooijakkers

      26927




      26927






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          Succinctness

          As rubyists, we love being succinct, and we love playing with enumerations.



          You will see very few literal false and true in ruby code, as well as very few explicit return calls.



          For example:



          Instead of writing return false if self < 1 we will prefer to compound the condition to self >= 1 && ... which will do the same thing, but we "save" return false.



          The power of Enumeration

          Ruby has a very powerful Enumerable, and is used widely, often more than once in a line (using method chaining).



          For example:




          2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
          return false if self % i == 0
          end



          Here you check if any of the numbers in the range are a divisor for self, and break if there is any. A more ruby way of doing it will be:



          return false if 2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }


          We'll also prefer to more succinct range syntax (2..Math.sqrt(self)), which is simply shorter...



          So now, our def prime? method could be reduced to a one-liner:



          class Integer
          def prime?
          self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
          end
          end


          Mapping

          Anywhere in the code I see the following pattern:



          result = []
          some_loop do
          result << something
          end


          A red flag is raised, and I look for a way to use map to do the same thing:



          result = some_loop.map { something }


          Your code goes over all the non-negative integers, and takes counts how many of them result in a prime, until the first non-prime.



          "All the non-negative integers" can be expressed in ruby as (0..Float::INFINITY), so we can write:



          (0..Float::INFINITY).map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while { |result| result.prime? }.count


          This code takes each integer, maps it into the result of n**2 + a*n + b, takes all the results until they are no longer prime, and counts how many are there.



          Cool! Right? The only problem with the code above, is that it will take infinity to complete it, as it takes all the numbers and maps them, and then checks for how many to take.



          To solve this problem ruby now has...



          Lazy Enumerables

          As of ruby 2.0, lazy enumerables allows you to calculate values in an infinite stream only as needed.



          To solve the problem above, all we need to do now is to add the lazy operator on the range:



          (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count


          And we have another one-liner!



          Everything is an enumerable

          So you want to save on your "upto-loops"? Let's do it!



          You want to enumerate over each pair of numbers from -999 to 1000, so what you actually want is to have a long matrix of those pairs:



          [[-999, -999], [-999, -998],...,[1000, 1000]].do_something_smart


          To do that, you can use product:



          (-999..1000).to_a.product((-999..1000).to_a)


          But since both a and b have the same range, we can even DRY this up, and use repeated_permutation:



          (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2)


          Both of these solutions will give you the needed matrix, so we can move on the see what we should do with it...



          We want to get the coeffiecients that produce the number of primes, so let's do just that:



          a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b) }


          Now all we need to do is multiply them with each other!



          Method naming

          Your names are very verbose, which is a good thing, but ruby idiom frowns upon get_ prefixes. Also, prefer using verbs already in the language (count) over those which are not in the language (amount_of)



          So now the code will look like:



          class Integer
          def prime?
          self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
          end
          end

          def count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b)
          (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count
          end

          def product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
          a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b) }
          a * b
          end

          start = Time.now
          answer = product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values

          puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


          15 lines of hard-core ruby-style code!



          Enjoy!





          Update

          It seems that lazy adds considerable overhead to the performance of the code. So it is not advisable to use it.



          Fortunately this works:



          (0..Float::INFINITY).take_while { |n| (n**2 + a*n + b).prime? }.count


          My code still runs ~2 times slower than the original (ends in 18 seconds), but it is more reasonable than with lazy...






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            also, you can inject your a*b :)
            $endgroup$
            – gaussblurinc
            Apr 20 '14 at 7:37










          • $begingroup$
            I like your code better, but it takes 130 seconds, while the original code takes 10. The prime function is a beauty. I suspect that the count_quadratic_formula_primes method is slow.
            $endgroup$
            – Erwin Rooijakkers
            Apr 20 '14 at 14:58










          • $begingroup$
            @user2609980 - yes, apparently lazy add a lot of overhead... see my update
            $endgroup$
            – Uri Agassi
            Apr 20 '14 at 18:08






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            user2609980, I'm surprised at the difference in execution times, but I'd pay no heed to that at this stage of your Ruby education. Uri has covered a wide swath of ground in his answer, acquainting you with typical Ruby coding style, the addition of a method to an existing Ruby class (prime?), the use of powerful enumerators map, product, permutation, any? and take_while from the Enumerable module, and up_to from the Integer class, and Ruby's new lazy operator. He has also nicely explained his reasons for coding it the way he has. Great answer, Uri.
            $endgroup$
            – Cary Swoveland
            Apr 20 '14 at 18:24










          • $begingroup$
            @CarySwoveland I am indeed very happy with the answer :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Erwin Rooijakkers
            Apr 21 '14 at 10:06



















          0












          $begingroup$

          I advise you to read a very good article.Red or Blue pill, Neo. Ruby vs. Python - which will you choose for your Backend? Good luck in your endeavors





          share








          New contributor




          Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$














            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "196"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47656%2fmake-project-euler-27-solution-idiomatic-ruby%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            5












            $begingroup$

            Succinctness

            As rubyists, we love being succinct, and we love playing with enumerations.



            You will see very few literal false and true in ruby code, as well as very few explicit return calls.



            For example:



            Instead of writing return false if self < 1 we will prefer to compound the condition to self >= 1 && ... which will do the same thing, but we "save" return false.



            The power of Enumeration

            Ruby has a very powerful Enumerable, and is used widely, often more than once in a line (using method chaining).



            For example:




            2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
            return false if self % i == 0
            end



            Here you check if any of the numbers in the range are a divisor for self, and break if there is any. A more ruby way of doing it will be:



            return false if 2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }


            We'll also prefer to more succinct range syntax (2..Math.sqrt(self)), which is simply shorter...



            So now, our def prime? method could be reduced to a one-liner:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end


            Mapping

            Anywhere in the code I see the following pattern:



            result = []
            some_loop do
            result << something
            end


            A red flag is raised, and I look for a way to use map to do the same thing:



            result = some_loop.map { something }


            Your code goes over all the non-negative integers, and takes counts how many of them result in a prime, until the first non-prime.



            "All the non-negative integers" can be expressed in ruby as (0..Float::INFINITY), so we can write:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while { |result| result.prime? }.count


            This code takes each integer, maps it into the result of n**2 + a*n + b, takes all the results until they are no longer prime, and counts how many are there.



            Cool! Right? The only problem with the code above, is that it will take infinity to complete it, as it takes all the numbers and maps them, and then checks for how many to take.



            To solve this problem ruby now has...



            Lazy Enumerables

            As of ruby 2.0, lazy enumerables allows you to calculate values in an infinite stream only as needed.



            To solve the problem above, all we need to do now is to add the lazy operator on the range:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count


            And we have another one-liner!



            Everything is an enumerable

            So you want to save on your "upto-loops"? Let's do it!



            You want to enumerate over each pair of numbers from -999 to 1000, so what you actually want is to have a long matrix of those pairs:



            [[-999, -999], [-999, -998],...,[1000, 1000]].do_something_smart


            To do that, you can use product:



            (-999..1000).to_a.product((-999..1000).to_a)


            But since both a and b have the same range, we can even DRY this up, and use repeated_permutation:



            (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2)


            Both of these solutions will give you the needed matrix, so we can move on the see what we should do with it...



            We want to get the coeffiecients that produce the number of primes, so let's do just that:



            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b) }


            Now all we need to do is multiply them with each other!



            Method naming

            Your names are very verbose, which is a good thing, but ruby idiom frowns upon get_ prefixes. Also, prefer using verbs already in the language (count) over those which are not in the language (amount_of)



            So now the code will look like:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end

            def count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b)
            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count
            end

            def product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b) }
            a * b
            end

            start = Time.now
            answer = product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values

            puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


            15 lines of hard-core ruby-style code!



            Enjoy!





            Update

            It seems that lazy adds considerable overhead to the performance of the code. So it is not advisable to use it.



            Fortunately this works:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).take_while { |n| (n**2 + a*n + b).prime? }.count


            My code still runs ~2 times slower than the original (ends in 18 seconds), but it is more reasonable than with lazy...






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              also, you can inject your a*b :)
              $endgroup$
              – gaussblurinc
              Apr 20 '14 at 7:37










            • $begingroup$
              I like your code better, but it takes 130 seconds, while the original code takes 10. The prime function is a beauty. I suspect that the count_quadratic_formula_primes method is slow.
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 20 '14 at 14:58










            • $begingroup$
              @user2609980 - yes, apparently lazy add a lot of overhead... see my update
              $endgroup$
              – Uri Agassi
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:08






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              user2609980, I'm surprised at the difference in execution times, but I'd pay no heed to that at this stage of your Ruby education. Uri has covered a wide swath of ground in his answer, acquainting you with typical Ruby coding style, the addition of a method to an existing Ruby class (prime?), the use of powerful enumerators map, product, permutation, any? and take_while from the Enumerable module, and up_to from the Integer class, and Ruby's new lazy operator. He has also nicely explained his reasons for coding it the way he has. Great answer, Uri.
              $endgroup$
              – Cary Swoveland
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              @CarySwoveland I am indeed very happy with the answer :-).
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 21 '14 at 10:06
















            5












            $begingroup$

            Succinctness

            As rubyists, we love being succinct, and we love playing with enumerations.



            You will see very few literal false and true in ruby code, as well as very few explicit return calls.



            For example:



            Instead of writing return false if self < 1 we will prefer to compound the condition to self >= 1 && ... which will do the same thing, but we "save" return false.



            The power of Enumeration

            Ruby has a very powerful Enumerable, and is used widely, often more than once in a line (using method chaining).



            For example:




            2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
            return false if self % i == 0
            end



            Here you check if any of the numbers in the range are a divisor for self, and break if there is any. A more ruby way of doing it will be:



            return false if 2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }


            We'll also prefer to more succinct range syntax (2..Math.sqrt(self)), which is simply shorter...



            So now, our def prime? method could be reduced to a one-liner:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end


            Mapping

            Anywhere in the code I see the following pattern:



            result = []
            some_loop do
            result << something
            end


            A red flag is raised, and I look for a way to use map to do the same thing:



            result = some_loop.map { something }


            Your code goes over all the non-negative integers, and takes counts how many of them result in a prime, until the first non-prime.



            "All the non-negative integers" can be expressed in ruby as (0..Float::INFINITY), so we can write:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while { |result| result.prime? }.count


            This code takes each integer, maps it into the result of n**2 + a*n + b, takes all the results until they are no longer prime, and counts how many are there.



            Cool! Right? The only problem with the code above, is that it will take infinity to complete it, as it takes all the numbers and maps them, and then checks for how many to take.



            To solve this problem ruby now has...



            Lazy Enumerables

            As of ruby 2.0, lazy enumerables allows you to calculate values in an infinite stream only as needed.



            To solve the problem above, all we need to do now is to add the lazy operator on the range:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count


            And we have another one-liner!



            Everything is an enumerable

            So you want to save on your "upto-loops"? Let's do it!



            You want to enumerate over each pair of numbers from -999 to 1000, so what you actually want is to have a long matrix of those pairs:



            [[-999, -999], [-999, -998],...,[1000, 1000]].do_something_smart


            To do that, you can use product:



            (-999..1000).to_a.product((-999..1000).to_a)


            But since both a and b have the same range, we can even DRY this up, and use repeated_permutation:



            (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2)


            Both of these solutions will give you the needed matrix, so we can move on the see what we should do with it...



            We want to get the coeffiecients that produce the number of primes, so let's do just that:



            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b) }


            Now all we need to do is multiply them with each other!



            Method naming

            Your names are very verbose, which is a good thing, but ruby idiom frowns upon get_ prefixes. Also, prefer using verbs already in the language (count) over those which are not in the language (amount_of)



            So now the code will look like:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end

            def count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b)
            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count
            end

            def product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b) }
            a * b
            end

            start = Time.now
            answer = product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values

            puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


            15 lines of hard-core ruby-style code!



            Enjoy!





            Update

            It seems that lazy adds considerable overhead to the performance of the code. So it is not advisable to use it.



            Fortunately this works:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).take_while { |n| (n**2 + a*n + b).prime? }.count


            My code still runs ~2 times slower than the original (ends in 18 seconds), but it is more reasonable than with lazy...






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$









            • 1




              $begingroup$
              also, you can inject your a*b :)
              $endgroup$
              – gaussblurinc
              Apr 20 '14 at 7:37










            • $begingroup$
              I like your code better, but it takes 130 seconds, while the original code takes 10. The prime function is a beauty. I suspect that the count_quadratic_formula_primes method is slow.
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 20 '14 at 14:58










            • $begingroup$
              @user2609980 - yes, apparently lazy add a lot of overhead... see my update
              $endgroup$
              – Uri Agassi
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:08






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              user2609980, I'm surprised at the difference in execution times, but I'd pay no heed to that at this stage of your Ruby education. Uri has covered a wide swath of ground in his answer, acquainting you with typical Ruby coding style, the addition of a method to an existing Ruby class (prime?), the use of powerful enumerators map, product, permutation, any? and take_while from the Enumerable module, and up_to from the Integer class, and Ruby's new lazy operator. He has also nicely explained his reasons for coding it the way he has. Great answer, Uri.
              $endgroup$
              – Cary Swoveland
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              @CarySwoveland I am indeed very happy with the answer :-).
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 21 '14 at 10:06














            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            Succinctness

            As rubyists, we love being succinct, and we love playing with enumerations.



            You will see very few literal false and true in ruby code, as well as very few explicit return calls.



            For example:



            Instead of writing return false if self < 1 we will prefer to compound the condition to self >= 1 && ... which will do the same thing, but we "save" return false.



            The power of Enumeration

            Ruby has a very powerful Enumerable, and is used widely, often more than once in a line (using method chaining).



            For example:




            2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
            return false if self % i == 0
            end



            Here you check if any of the numbers in the range are a divisor for self, and break if there is any. A more ruby way of doing it will be:



            return false if 2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }


            We'll also prefer to more succinct range syntax (2..Math.sqrt(self)), which is simply shorter...



            So now, our def prime? method could be reduced to a one-liner:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end


            Mapping

            Anywhere in the code I see the following pattern:



            result = []
            some_loop do
            result << something
            end


            A red flag is raised, and I look for a way to use map to do the same thing:



            result = some_loop.map { something }


            Your code goes over all the non-negative integers, and takes counts how many of them result in a prime, until the first non-prime.



            "All the non-negative integers" can be expressed in ruby as (0..Float::INFINITY), so we can write:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while { |result| result.prime? }.count


            This code takes each integer, maps it into the result of n**2 + a*n + b, takes all the results until they are no longer prime, and counts how many are there.



            Cool! Right? The only problem with the code above, is that it will take infinity to complete it, as it takes all the numbers and maps them, and then checks for how many to take.



            To solve this problem ruby now has...



            Lazy Enumerables

            As of ruby 2.0, lazy enumerables allows you to calculate values in an infinite stream only as needed.



            To solve the problem above, all we need to do now is to add the lazy operator on the range:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count


            And we have another one-liner!



            Everything is an enumerable

            So you want to save on your "upto-loops"? Let's do it!



            You want to enumerate over each pair of numbers from -999 to 1000, so what you actually want is to have a long matrix of those pairs:



            [[-999, -999], [-999, -998],...,[1000, 1000]].do_something_smart


            To do that, you can use product:



            (-999..1000).to_a.product((-999..1000).to_a)


            But since both a and b have the same range, we can even DRY this up, and use repeated_permutation:



            (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2)


            Both of these solutions will give you the needed matrix, so we can move on the see what we should do with it...



            We want to get the coeffiecients that produce the number of primes, so let's do just that:



            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b) }


            Now all we need to do is multiply them with each other!



            Method naming

            Your names are very verbose, which is a good thing, but ruby idiom frowns upon get_ prefixes. Also, prefer using verbs already in the language (count) over those which are not in the language (amount_of)



            So now the code will look like:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end

            def count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b)
            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count
            end

            def product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b) }
            a * b
            end

            start = Time.now
            answer = product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values

            puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


            15 lines of hard-core ruby-style code!



            Enjoy!





            Update

            It seems that lazy adds considerable overhead to the performance of the code. So it is not advisable to use it.



            Fortunately this works:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).take_while { |n| (n**2 + a*n + b).prime? }.count


            My code still runs ~2 times slower than the original (ends in 18 seconds), but it is more reasonable than with lazy...






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Succinctness

            As rubyists, we love being succinct, and we love playing with enumerations.



            You will see very few literal false and true in ruby code, as well as very few explicit return calls.



            For example:



            Instead of writing return false if self < 1 we will prefer to compound the condition to self >= 1 && ... which will do the same thing, but we "save" return false.



            The power of Enumeration

            Ruby has a very powerful Enumerable, and is used widely, often more than once in a line (using method chaining).



            For example:




            2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)) do |i|
            return false if self % i == 0
            end



            Here you check if any of the numbers in the range are a divisor for self, and break if there is any. A more ruby way of doing it will be:



            return false if 2.upto(Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }


            We'll also prefer to more succinct range syntax (2..Math.sqrt(self)), which is simply shorter...



            So now, our def prime? method could be reduced to a one-liner:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end


            Mapping

            Anywhere in the code I see the following pattern:



            result = []
            some_loop do
            result << something
            end


            A red flag is raised, and I look for a way to use map to do the same thing:



            result = some_loop.map { something }


            Your code goes over all the non-negative integers, and takes counts how many of them result in a prime, until the first non-prime.



            "All the non-negative integers" can be expressed in ruby as (0..Float::INFINITY), so we can write:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while { |result| result.prime? }.count


            This code takes each integer, maps it into the result of n**2 + a*n + b, takes all the results until they are no longer prime, and counts how many are there.



            Cool! Right? The only problem with the code above, is that it will take infinity to complete it, as it takes all the numbers and maps them, and then checks for how many to take.



            To solve this problem ruby now has...



            Lazy Enumerables

            As of ruby 2.0, lazy enumerables allows you to calculate values in an infinite stream only as needed.



            To solve the problem above, all we need to do now is to add the lazy operator on the range:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count


            And we have another one-liner!



            Everything is an enumerable

            So you want to save on your "upto-loops"? Let's do it!



            You want to enumerate over each pair of numbers from -999 to 1000, so what you actually want is to have a long matrix of those pairs:



            [[-999, -999], [-999, -998],...,[1000, 1000]].do_something_smart


            To do that, you can use product:



            (-999..1000).to_a.product((-999..1000).to_a)


            But since both a and b have the same range, we can even DRY this up, and use repeated_permutation:



            (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2)


            Both of these solutions will give you the needed matrix, so we can move on the see what we should do with it...



            We want to get the coeffiecients that produce the number of primes, so let's do just that:



            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| get_amount_of_primes_from_quadratic_formula(a,b) }


            Now all we need to do is multiply them with each other!



            Method naming

            Your names are very verbose, which is a good thing, but ruby idiom frowns upon get_ prefixes. Also, prefer using verbs already in the language (count) over those which are not in the language (amount_of)



            So now the code will look like:



            class Integer
            def prime?
            self > 1 && !(2..Math.sqrt(self)).any? { |i| self % i == 0 }
            end
            end

            def count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b)
            (0..Float::INFINITY).lazy.map { |n| n**2 + a*n + b }.take_while(&:prime?).count
            end

            def product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values()
            a, b = (-999..1000).to_a.repeated_permutation(2).max_by { |a, b| count_quadratic_formula_primes(a,b) }
            a * b
            end

            start = Time.now
            answer = product_of_coefficients_that_produce_maximum_number_of_primes_for_consecutive_values

            puts "The answer is #{answer} and it took #{Time.now-start} seconds."


            15 lines of hard-core ruby-style code!



            Enjoy!





            Update

            It seems that lazy adds considerable overhead to the performance of the code. So it is not advisable to use it.



            Fortunately this works:



            (0..Float::INFINITY).take_while { |n| (n**2 + a*n + b).prime? }.count


            My code still runs ~2 times slower than the original (ends in 18 seconds), but it is more reasonable than with lazy...







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Apr 20 '14 at 18:07

























            answered Apr 20 '14 at 7:02









            Uri AgassiUri Agassi

            6,37211246




            6,37211246








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              also, you can inject your a*b :)
              $endgroup$
              – gaussblurinc
              Apr 20 '14 at 7:37










            • $begingroup$
              I like your code better, but it takes 130 seconds, while the original code takes 10. The prime function is a beauty. I suspect that the count_quadratic_formula_primes method is slow.
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 20 '14 at 14:58










            • $begingroup$
              @user2609980 - yes, apparently lazy add a lot of overhead... see my update
              $endgroup$
              – Uri Agassi
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:08






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              user2609980, I'm surprised at the difference in execution times, but I'd pay no heed to that at this stage of your Ruby education. Uri has covered a wide swath of ground in his answer, acquainting you with typical Ruby coding style, the addition of a method to an existing Ruby class (prime?), the use of powerful enumerators map, product, permutation, any? and take_while from the Enumerable module, and up_to from the Integer class, and Ruby's new lazy operator. He has also nicely explained his reasons for coding it the way he has. Great answer, Uri.
              $endgroup$
              – Cary Swoveland
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              @CarySwoveland I am indeed very happy with the answer :-).
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 21 '14 at 10:06














            • 1




              $begingroup$
              also, you can inject your a*b :)
              $endgroup$
              – gaussblurinc
              Apr 20 '14 at 7:37










            • $begingroup$
              I like your code better, but it takes 130 seconds, while the original code takes 10. The prime function is a beauty. I suspect that the count_quadratic_formula_primes method is slow.
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 20 '14 at 14:58










            • $begingroup$
              @user2609980 - yes, apparently lazy add a lot of overhead... see my update
              $endgroup$
              – Uri Agassi
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:08






            • 3




              $begingroup$
              user2609980, I'm surprised at the difference in execution times, but I'd pay no heed to that at this stage of your Ruby education. Uri has covered a wide swath of ground in his answer, acquainting you with typical Ruby coding style, the addition of a method to an existing Ruby class (prime?), the use of powerful enumerators map, product, permutation, any? and take_while from the Enumerable module, and up_to from the Integer class, and Ruby's new lazy operator. He has also nicely explained his reasons for coding it the way he has. Great answer, Uri.
              $endgroup$
              – Cary Swoveland
              Apr 20 '14 at 18:24










            • $begingroup$
              @CarySwoveland I am indeed very happy with the answer :-).
              $endgroup$
              – Erwin Rooijakkers
              Apr 21 '14 at 10:06








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            also, you can inject your a*b :)
            $endgroup$
            – gaussblurinc
            Apr 20 '14 at 7:37




            $begingroup$
            also, you can inject your a*b :)
            $endgroup$
            – gaussblurinc
            Apr 20 '14 at 7:37












            $begingroup$
            I like your code better, but it takes 130 seconds, while the original code takes 10. The prime function is a beauty. I suspect that the count_quadratic_formula_primes method is slow.
            $endgroup$
            – Erwin Rooijakkers
            Apr 20 '14 at 14:58




            $begingroup$
            I like your code better, but it takes 130 seconds, while the original code takes 10. The prime function is a beauty. I suspect that the count_quadratic_formula_primes method is slow.
            $endgroup$
            – Erwin Rooijakkers
            Apr 20 '14 at 14:58












            $begingroup$
            @user2609980 - yes, apparently lazy add a lot of overhead... see my update
            $endgroup$
            – Uri Agassi
            Apr 20 '14 at 18:08




            $begingroup$
            @user2609980 - yes, apparently lazy add a lot of overhead... see my update
            $endgroup$
            – Uri Agassi
            Apr 20 '14 at 18:08




            3




            3




            $begingroup$
            user2609980, I'm surprised at the difference in execution times, but I'd pay no heed to that at this stage of your Ruby education. Uri has covered a wide swath of ground in his answer, acquainting you with typical Ruby coding style, the addition of a method to an existing Ruby class (prime?), the use of powerful enumerators map, product, permutation, any? and take_while from the Enumerable module, and up_to from the Integer class, and Ruby's new lazy operator. He has also nicely explained his reasons for coding it the way he has. Great answer, Uri.
            $endgroup$
            – Cary Swoveland
            Apr 20 '14 at 18:24




            $begingroup$
            user2609980, I'm surprised at the difference in execution times, but I'd pay no heed to that at this stage of your Ruby education. Uri has covered a wide swath of ground in his answer, acquainting you with typical Ruby coding style, the addition of a method to an existing Ruby class (prime?), the use of powerful enumerators map, product, permutation, any? and take_while from the Enumerable module, and up_to from the Integer class, and Ruby's new lazy operator. He has also nicely explained his reasons for coding it the way he has. Great answer, Uri.
            $endgroup$
            – Cary Swoveland
            Apr 20 '14 at 18:24












            $begingroup$
            @CarySwoveland I am indeed very happy with the answer :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Erwin Rooijakkers
            Apr 21 '14 at 10:06




            $begingroup$
            @CarySwoveland I am indeed very happy with the answer :-).
            $endgroup$
            – Erwin Rooijakkers
            Apr 21 '14 at 10:06













            0












            $begingroup$

            I advise you to read a very good article.Red or Blue pill, Neo. Ruby vs. Python - which will you choose for your Backend? Good luck in your endeavors





            share








            New contributor




            Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
            Check out our Code of Conduct.






            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              I advise you to read a very good article.Red or Blue pill, Neo. Ruby vs. Python - which will you choose for your Backend? Good luck in your endeavors





              share








              New contributor




              Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.






              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                I advise you to read a very good article.Red or Blue pill, Neo. Ruby vs. Python - which will you choose for your Backend? Good luck in your endeavors





                share








                New contributor




                Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                $endgroup$



                I advise you to read a very good article.Red or Blue pill, Neo. Ruby vs. Python - which will you choose for your Backend? Good luck in your endeavors






                share








                New contributor




                Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.








                share


                share






                New contributor




                Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.









                answered 8 mins ago









                Vladyslav AfrinVladyslav Afrin

                11




                11




                New contributor




                Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.





                New contributor





                Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






                Vladyslav Afrin is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f47656%2fmake-project-euler-27-solution-idiomatic-ruby%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    is 'sed' thread safeWhat should someone know about using Python scripts in the shell?Nexenta bash script uses...

                    How do i solve the “ No module named 'mlxtend' ” issue on Jupyter?

                    Pilgersdorf Inhaltsverzeichnis Geografie | Geschichte | Bevölkerungsentwicklung | Politik | Kultur...