|
It also amazes me that there are 52 forks of this, um, "code."
Really? People needed to fork this code to tweak it for their own use?
I wouldn't even bother to search for a package that does leftpad. But then again, I use C#, which, oh look, already has a String.LeftPad()[^] method. Maybe people ought to start using real programming languages.
The open source programming community really has gone to hell in a handbasket.
[edit]Need proof? Just look at the various implementation suggestions on SO[^] [/edit]
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
How many are real forks vs I-clicked-the-wrong-button-in-githubs?
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
That's why the internet is so slow. Every web site is using 100's of javascript libraries and this is for websites that are basically just static text and images.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Verhas asks a seemingly innocent question during a technical interview, and gets an answer that is not wrong, but doesn’t really fit. "You hire what you interview for" <- I'm wearing this on a shirt for my next interview
|
|
|
|
|
Right on! 
A simple "no" is the wrong answer here, and even when it is, never give a one-word answer, explain why, and while you're doing that, you may realize that there is a way around.
And it's a stoopid question, shows lack of understanding on the interviewer's part. Plus, why ask what you think is a yes/no question? Better to ask, "how might a static method in a class call a non-static method of the same class?"
|
|
|
|
|
That may be too insulting to the HR folks. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like Internet Person B is reading too much into Internet Person A's post.
A writes that he got an answer R to a simple question Q that was correct but not what A expected - but still the candidate C didn't make it.
B concludes - apparently incorrectly - that C didn't make it *because* of the unexpectedness of R. B might further be preoccupied by the general notion of *asking questions* which B seems to either mix up with "not writing code" (incorrect) or considers useless in general (debatable).
So as A asks, what's the morale of the story? Different, seemingly contradicting answer can be both correct. Acing one answer doesn't save the interview. Internet B is pretty prejudiced about the rights and wrongs of the interview process.
|
|
|
|
|
As with any such article, we can only go by what is written, and we therefore cannot infer any additional information.
Quote: But then again: the answer from one candidate this time was: yes. And he even started to explain that it may happen that the static method has access to an instance. It may get an instance as a method argument and through that reference, it can call an instance method. That person was right.
But then.....
Quote: It did not, however, change the fact that he did not know Java well enough, but as a matter of fact in this very specific question, she was right.
No other mention is made that other pertinent questions were asked, or what the rest of the interview consisted of. We therefore cannot infer any other information. We have to go on what was written here in the article. In which case, the candidate was rejected because they didn't give the expected answer.
"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: No other mention is made that other pertinent questions were asked, or what the rest of the interview consisted of
Which shouldn't make us assume that no other question happened.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice try lol but the assumption is made by the person who adds or infers information which was not originally mentioned. In this case there is no mention made of any other questions so it is an assumption to speculate that any others were asked 
"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
|
|
|
|
|
The guiding principle is to make benevolent assumptions about uncertain things.
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the guiding principle is to not make any assumptions. Where there are gaps in knowledge, you can ask questions. This isn't a scientific hypothesis, it's a job interview.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
This sounds good in principle - but that's not what usually happens.
We habve to make decisions on insufficient information all the time.
If you would follow this rule, you could not infer that
Quote: We have to go on what was written here in the article. In which case, the candidate was rejected because they didn't give the expected answer.
Because that's not spelled out in the article.
|
|
|
|
|
I like it.
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
Quote:
It did not, however, change the fact that he did not know Java well enough, but as a matter of fact in this very specific question, she was right.
No wonder he/she didn't get the job, if he/she was undergoing gender-reassignment surgery in the middle of the interview!
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Milking an older PC for every ounce of life makes perfect sense for most people. It's good enough, and fast enough, and dog-gone-it. People like it.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I'm not sure...
"PCs aren’t like smartphones, replaced every other year. To the vast majority of people, PCs are like microwaves—pricey appliances replaced only when they’re no longer able to fulfill their basic function.
Not talking about low-end, but SmartPhones are just as pricey, and cost even more (accumulated) considering the fact that they are replaced every other year (not to mention the enviromental cost of this behavior), and they are replaced even though they can still fulfill their basic function in most cases. So the question becomes: Why aren't phones like microwaves to the majority of people? I can think of several reasons: They are designed to not last very long, it's hard to repair them, often hard or impossible to replace the battery, expand storage capacity etc., and sometimes it's just missing software and security updates because the vendor decided to not support the device anymore. If PCs were like that, it would be just the same (and some actually are: just look at devices like the Surface or iPad...glued together, irreplaceable components, motherboards with soldered RAM chips...)
|
|
|
|
|
That's a very good point. I shared the same thoughts about phones - before I had any experience with smartphones. They were basically very replaceable, I just had to save my contacts and some random notes.
Now after using my second smartphone(first was the same but smaller and not as capable), it feels like I have a mini computer with me all the time. If I weren't a developer, I could replace my computer with it. And I don't feel like changing phones every two years or whenever a company says that it's obsolete and therefore won't support it.
And when I was buying my latest phone, it was already somewhere in the middle regarding it's "age". But it wasn't too expensive and luckily MS decided to upgrade my device too.
|
|
|
|
|
FIorian Schneidereit wrote: ... and sometimes it's just missing software and security updates because the vendor decided to not support the device anymore. If PCs were like that...
Well... They are going that way. If not... why to kill Win7?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
PCs (Windows/Linux/MacOS) have a hardware maturity that portable devices do not yet have.
Most people (not us) can live with couple of years old computers with minor upgrades (add more memory and HD space).
We do not change our habits just because there is new hardware available; mom or dad will not use GPU/CPU intensive software if they have not done so before; if they used such software, they already have what they needed from the start.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Want to control a Windows 10-based robot or sous-vide machine with your voice? Microsoft is giving developers guidance how to add cloud-connected speech capabilities to IoT devices. "Everybody’s talking at the same time"
|
|
|
|
|
And yet at the same time, we still have totally crappy speech synthesis.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Google made its Cloud Machine Learning platform, which is used by Google Photos, Translate, and Inbox, available to developers today. There you go: teach your machines well
|
|
|
|
|
The company is expected to provide details of the open-source OS at a developer conference next month Oh, good. We were running a little short on those
|
|
|
|
|
I found out about this problem like a lot of you, when our builds started failing because we use the extremely helpful JSCS. More on yesterday's "LeftPad-opaclypse" (needs a better name)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
