Did you run your code through static analysis tools?

[bknowles]

For example, shellcheck (https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck) has this to say about fizzbuzz.sh:

$ shellcheck fizzbuzz.sh 

In fizzbuzz.sh line 7:
    if [ `expr $i % 3` == 0 ] && [ `expr $i % 5` == 0 ]; then
         ^-- SC2046: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
         ^-- SC2006: Use $(..) instead of legacy `..`.
          ^-- SC2003: expr is antiquated. Consider rewriting this using $((..)), ${} or [[ ]].
                                   ^-- SC2046: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
                                   ^-- SC2006: Use $(..) instead of legacy `..`.
                                    ^-- SC2003: expr is antiquated. Consider rewriting this using $((..)), ${} or [[ ]].


In fizzbuzz.sh line 9:
    elif [ `expr $i % 3` == 0 ]; then
           ^-- SC2046: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
           ^-- SC2006: Use $(..) instead of legacy `..`.
            ^-- SC2003: expr is antiquated. Consider rewriting this using $((..)), ${} or [[ ]].


In fizzbuzz.sh line 11:
    elif [ `expr $i % 5` == 0 ]; then
           ^-- SC2046: Quote this to prevent word splitting.
           ^-- SC2006: Use $(..) instead of legacy `..`.
            ^-- SC2003: expr is antiquated. Consider rewriting this using $((..)), ${} or [[ ]].

[bknowles]

Here's a diff that updates the code to address all the things shellcheck complained about:

$ git diff
diff --git a/fizzbuzz.sh b/fizzbuzz.sh
old mode 100644
new mode 100755
index b870440..a7699f8
--- a/fizzbuzz.sh
+++ b/fizzbuzz.sh
@@ -4,11 +4,11 @@
 for i in {1..100}
 do
 
-    if [ `expr $i % 3` == 0 ] && [ `expr $i % 5` == 0 ]; then
+    if [[ $((i % 3)) == 0 ]] && [[ $((i % 5)) == 0 ]]; then
         echo "FizzBuzz"
-    elif [ `expr $i % 3` == 0 ]; then
+    elif [[ $((i % 3)) == 0 ]]; then
         echo "Fizz"
-    elif [ `expr $i % 5` == 0 ]; then
+    elif [[ $((i % 5)) == 0 ]]; then
         echo "Buzz"
     else
         echo $i

If you want a PR instead, I'll be happy to provide that.

[iolivia]

thanks @bknowles, I didn't run any of the code through static analysis since I did most of this in online compilers. I did run it through hackerrank for all the supported languages to verify the correctness 😄

thanks for your contributions! 🎉 🚀

it's a bit tricky to run all the languages through static compilers because:

• some don't have any tools for that
• some have tools but are highly configuration reliant (for example javascript/typescript have linters but there's no "standard" way)
• there's no build/compile in this repo, it's all just source, so if we made everything compliant now we would have to manually make sure it all stays compliant

[bknowles]

Yeah, static analysis tools will vary by language, and when you're mixing a wide variety of languages in a single repo as opposed to using a single repo to house an entire project or part of a project, it gets harder to incorporate things like these tools in an automated fashion.

So, it will definitely be totally manual. But, I felt it would be good to at least make an attempt to show people what appears to be current idiomatic code, at least starting with bash.

Thanks again!