|
It's annoying but it's also how employers role these days.
Just ignore it and move on - until you have a written contract/offer in your hand you have nothing - keep looking.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
I am not really bothered with not getting job. I want to know why they spent 6 hours on me? They kind of wasted time of their 8 people during this time.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: I want to know why they spent 6 hours on me?
Because you were one of a number of candidates that they didn't weed out with a phone interview and sought to see which of you would best fit the role.
They don't care that you gave up a day of your time to interview.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yes, it is "just you;" or, "just me," if the wheel turns again. And, it just makes us human to make an effort to present ourselves as favorable candidates, "get our hopes up," and then be disappointed if there's no response.
However, the "glass is half-full" interpretation is that you were considered seriously, you made it past the initial screening (and probably many others did not).
So, how about praising yourself for a partial "win" ? And, also, consider that the process you just went through may have given you valuable ideas about how to shape your presentation of self, and work, the next time ?
I know, I know, "easier said than done." And, there is a solid body of social science research that indicates, in general, we humans react more strongly to a perceived loss than to a perceived gain, even if the two are really equal in consequences (see Kahnemann, Tversky, et. al.).
But, to some extent, we do have the power to shape the way we cognitively appraise the inevitable disappointments that life throws in our path.
to your future, Bill
“But I don't want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.”
“How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice.
“You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.” Lewis Carroll
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask.
Does anyone ever get a positive response after a "We'll get back to you"? Both of the interviews I was hired from they didn't let me out the door without saying they'd at least follow up with an offer. Everything else was the standard fob off and I got confirmations of no interest from maybe 1 in 4.
|
|
|
|
|
Many places won't even say "We'll get back to you" because they know they might not. Most places have lots of applicants to sift through and they want to make the process as streamlined as possible for themselves while also protecting themselves from litigation.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: there are some more who feel irritated when potential employers say, "We will get back to you" and never do?
I did a phone interview that went well, then did a programming quiz which took about 15 hours that I thought I rocked. The potential employer got back to me (by email) a few days later and said I wasn't a "perfect fit." No other explanation. I sent a response saying I would appreciate learning why not. No response.
1. I had put a BSD License on all the source files, so I will sue their asses if I see anything that looks like they used my code in their product.
2. The code really is good (a multi-threading image viewer) and is based on some work I did years ago which I published here, so you can expect an article soon.
But as far as I'm concerned, they are losers, and quite frankly, they are the losers.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I had put a BSD License on all the source files
Never thought of that. Something to ensure from next time. Thanks.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Marc,
That reminds me of when I was a free-lance consultant (PostScript, printing, Mac screen to PostScript, etc.), and Claris had me come down twice for interviews; in the second series of interviews it was clear to me they were asking me questions which were clearly related to road-blocks in software under development, and I told them gently, but firmly, that what they were asking me for advice on was something I could help them with when I had an employment contract.
They told me to go home; I did. A week later, after I had already accepted another consulting job for three months, I received a package in the mail from Claris with lengthy legal documents of arcane complexity, and a cover letter indicating I should sign the documents, return them by mail, and come down for another series of interviews.
I replied by mail to Claris with an invoice for hours spent in the second series of interviews, and the information that I had other employment now. While I thought of this as a joke, and a middle-finger-up: they paid the invoice !
I think that's one of the real problems for any consultant, or job-seeker: you have to "give them something," but, if they get "too much" from you "for free," they don't "respect you in the morning," so to speak.
At the point someone demanded I write working code, I'd want an employment contract.
But, oh yeah, then: there's the rent to pay, and the car to fix, and the kids to pay tuition for ...
“But I don't want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.”
“How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice.
“You must be," said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.” Lewis Carroll
|
|
|
|
|
I have an third party application that will be processing CSV files and pushing data to a data store. However, due to limitations in the application, the CSV files need to be pre-processed to add some additional data, reformat some fields and split the original file into smaller files.
The question is: to write a script to process it daily or to write a compiled app...
Either way, the solution will be running as a scheduled task on a server.
Thoughts? Opinions?
|
|
|
|
|
Why not both? 
This space intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
|
|
Which one will you look at in six months after it's become a critical production process and be able to understand/adapt more easily?
|
|
|
|
|
I started with scripting for adaptability, but, now I'm leaning towards a console app for expanded control (garbage cleanup, better logging, debugging, etc).
It WILL be a mission critical app to the users once in full production.
Ugh...
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what any of those things have to do with deciding between a compiled or scripted solution.
|
|
|
|
|
Started with the scripted solution because it's quick and should have worked.
However, despite destroying objects, there is still an issue with something not being released, but, of course, the scripting app won't tell me what it is.
If scripting worked, I could edit in place and move on.
Since it is causing issues, I will be moving to an app (.NET based) where I can control the environment better.
And, what does one have to do with the other and this response? Prefer the simple and elegant, but moving to the more involved, but probably better in the long run. And.. continued to try to get scripting working after original post.
|
|
|
|
|
Your main question is related to maintainability of the solution imo.
Who is going to maintain it?
What technology (script language) do you intend to use?
Who else can handle this technology in your team?
What is your rollout strategy like? Do you require formal testing and signoff for example...
Just to name a few...
For me; scripts are easier to roll out than executables. And .NET is not a data friendly solution if all you need is CSV formats to be handled.
Cigarettes are a lot like hamsters. Perfectly harmless, until you put it in your mouth and light it on fire.
|
|
|
|
|
I would have said .NET from the get-go; the difference between a script and source code is one, measly compile, but the .NET will give you so many options and so much reference in the literature.
Of course, sometimes you have to hack a prior script, in which case you just have to dive right in and stay with it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: It WILL be a mission critical app to the users once in full production.
Scripting means someone else, who thinks they're smarter than you, can "improve" upon it.
|
|
|
|
|
u$ SQL's BCP utility and/or Integration Services for SQL may be worth a gander.
|
|
|
|
|
You say potata...[^]
My take on these sorts of issues is use whatever you are comfortable with.
The advantage of the script is that it won't need recompiling if you need to make a change the logic is easily viewed by opening the script in notepad.
The advantage of the compiled code app is that the debug facilities in the IDE may be better.
You say potata..
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say write a script. It is what the scripting languages are there for. Size of your script (depending on the scripting language) will be much smaller (thus less effort) than the app. It should be much quicker to execute too (depending on the scripting language and your scripting skills). In the long run you can build yourself a scripting tool kit. Advantages of writing a script for the current project will possibly not show yet but will definitely show in the projects to come.
When you require the use of a scripting language in the future, you'll have scripts performing script related tasks and apps performing app related tasks and not a unmanageable toolkit consisting of both scripts and apps performing only script related tasks.
I agree with GuyThiebaut that you won't have advantages of debugging... thus would suggest sanity checks throughout your script (a good practice even if you're writing a compiled app).
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."
<< please vote!! >>
modified 11-Feb-14 8:56am.
|
|
|
|
|
R. Erasmus wrote: I agree with GuyThiebaut that you won't have advantages of debugging... thus would suggest sanity checks throughout your script (a good practice even if you're writing a compiled app).
Not ok... even scripts should get a complete test set. Especially as it is going to be important in production. Don't cut corners there, you'll regret it.
Cigarettes are a lot like hamsters. Perfectly harmless, until you put it in your mouth and light it on fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed, if its going to be production code then it needs to be unit tested which makes the decision for you.
Scripts are good for adhoc operations tasks but not for a production system that's going to evolve and go through a number of versions
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
