|
Unless I'm employing someone to create strategies, they can keep their strategies at home -- that's as "aligned" as they need to be.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Just the sort of comment I'd expect from someone with misalignment all over their strategies!
Try Hovercraft for Android, voted "a game" by players.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm strategically unaligning myself from your comments.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Surely it doesn't matter if your strategies come from Ruby, .NET or Mars. If you can write clean, well designed and structured code that meets or exceeds the client's expectations, then it's irrelevant.
If I came across that statement from the "lead" tech for a job interview, I'd seriously question their credentials.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." - C.A.R. Hoare
Home | LinkedIn | Google+ | Twitter
|
|
|
|
|
Dominic Burford wrote: Surely it doesn't matter if your strategies come from Ruby, .NET or Mars.
My thoughts exactly.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: "wants to make sure that your strategies align more with Ruby best practices as opposed to a more traditionally .NET approach."
Marc Clifton wrote: Now, what exactly does that mean?
Quite simply it means nothing!
I have worked businesses where a number of people use business jargon and nothing else - apart from finding it highly irritating it quite simply is a means of obscuring their lack of knowledge in an area while trying to sound impressive.
Best practice - whatever gets the job done making future maintenance as straightforward as possible, in other words doing what you are paid to do.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. He wants continuous, built-in testing.
Ignore this at your peril.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
May I translate:
We are the Borg. You will be assimilated. Your existence as you know it is over and you will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Or even simpler:
We want to go sure that any crap we have produced, be it as unconventional as it wants, will be adopted by you as best practice.
If you have the option: Run as fast and as far you can.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: If you have the option: Run as fast and as far you can.
I do, but I also don't want to turn down what could be a lucrative contract. I'll have to do a bit of interviewing the interviewer myself. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Money is not everything. It really sounds like they declare all their grand ideas to be 'best practices' and the lucrative contract quickly becomes an endless drama. I have seen that before:
"It's a 'best practice' to do it that way."
"Certainly not. It's wrong, causes an error reported by the users and is generally considered to be an anti-pattern."
"Then it's a convention of ours!"
"You made a convention out of deliberately introducing bugs?"
Really, be careful. I have learned to fear the words 'best practice' or 'convention'. Often enough you should read those two as 'dogma'.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a f***ing golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?"
"You mean like from space?"
"No, from Canada."
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: Really, be careful. I have learned to fear the words 'best practice' or 'convention'. Often enough you should read those two as 'dogma'.
Oh, I will, and I completely agree. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: "wants to make sure that your strategies align more with Ruby best practices as opposed to a more traditionally .NET approach."
I think this statement is a preemptive strike from the the interviewer. What he really is trying to say is - If you try to outsmart me with your knowledge, i'll throw in a "this is not how its done in Ruby" trump card and save my ego.
|
|
|
|
|
Rahul Rajat Singh wrote: If you try to outsmart me with your knowledge, i'll throw in a "this is not how its done in Ruby" trump card and save my ego.
Ugh. I've experienced that before!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
This reminds me of a an old story. Once an interviewer told me - "I want to know whether you understand the difference between VB and .Net properly" and surprisingly it was in 2008 so he was not talking about VB6, He was talking about VB.NET.
And I was like 
|
|
|
|
|
To my ears, the meta-message seems loud-and-clear, resonating with some, or all, of the following:
0. I am insecure.
1. I am suspicious of you, personally, or professionally
2. I am (may be) threatened by your achievements/background/experience/reputation /.../.../...
3. I want to know if you'd "fit in" in every possible sense of that word including:
a. will you accept me as your boss, and grovel if necessary in the interview to prove that
b. won't be someone who will stand out and be seen as a replacement for me.
c. if you realize how dumb I am, how over-promoted, will you blow my cover ?
4. Ruby is my religion: will you convert, or not ? Prove you are not an unbeliever by walking across hot coals without screaming.
5. I want to see some vulnerability
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: resonating with some, or all, of the following:
Yeah, that seems to be the sentiment here. I'll be interested to see how it goes.
Thanks for the feedback, it may be valuable!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Make up a list of .NET bad practices, then answers on how to use Ruby like a gentleman and avoid those practices, while incorporating Ruby best practices.
No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
|
|
Did you hear about the mathematician who’s afraid of negative numbers?
He will stop at nothing to avoid them.
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
And -1 and +1 are the perfect couple, because nothing comes between them.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Is that how baby zeroes are created ?
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Hey!
No digital pr0n in the Lounge!
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Your coat is in the closet, down the hall. 
|
|
|
|
|
Actually it's on the chair in front of me... I haven't bought a proper coat hanger yet 
My blog[ ^]
public class SanderRossel : Lazy<Person>
{
public void DoWork()
{
throw new NotSupportedException();
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
He prefers decimal numbers to integers - in fact he always makes a point of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: He will stop at nothing to avoid them.
You assume there's a singularity hanging around zero ?
Does the set that contains no numbers have a larger Aleph (infinite ordinality) greater than the Aleph of the set that contains all numbers, real, imaginary, rational, irrational ? Warning: this is the kind of thing that led both Godel and Cantor into insanity.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
