This was fun but I'm wondering if there is always more than 1 way to solve a problem, and if so what makes 1 version better or worse?

My solution was to use a while loop.... please feel free to leave me a comment as this is my first time learning any coding language so encouragement and pointers are welcomed.

var number = 1

while number <= 100 {

    //check for multiple of 3 and 5
    if number % 3 == 0 && number % 5 == 0 {
        print("FizzBuzz")
    }

    //check for multiple of 3
    else if number % 3 == 0 {
        print("Fizz")
    }

    //check for multiple of 5
    else if number % 5 == 0 {
        print("Buzz")
    }

    // or just print the number
    else {
        print("\(number)")
    }
    number += 1
}

while tends to be used for indeterminate conditions (that is conditionals where you are not certain exactly when they will become false).

For ranges it is better to use for … in …

for number in 1...100 {

    var result = ""

    if number.isMultiple(of: 3) {
        result += "Fizz"
    }

    if number.isMultiple(of: 5) {
        result += "Buzz"
    }

    if result.isEmpty {
        result = String(number)
    }

    print(result)
}

A bit less readble, but they do the same job, and are a variations on a theme using combinations of ternaries

for number in 1...100 {
    number.isMultiple(of: 3) ? (number.isMultiple(of: 5) ? print("FizzBuzz") : print("Fizz")) : number.isMultiple(of: 5) ? print("Buzz") : print(String(number))
}

for number in 1...100 {
    var result = ""
    result = number.isMultiple(of: 3) ? (number.isMultiple(of: 5) ? "FizzBuzz" : "Fizz") : number.isMultiple(of: 5) ? "Buzz" :
    String(number)
    print(result)
}

for number in 1...100 {
    print (number.isMultiple(of: 3) ? (number.isMultiple(of: 5) ? "FizzBuzz" : "Fizz") : number.isMultiple(of: 5) ? "Buzz" :
    String(number))
}

@roosterboy thank you, somehow I found the % before I found the isMultiple(of: ) and yes it is much easier to read.

@Greenamberred while felt familiar to me as I have used this function in filemaker but as you point out using for … in … is more appropriate.

Thank you both for taking the time to help out