Every serious Java programmer should own a copy. For example, two or more years of Java experience, Bachelor's degree in Comp. Perform a Monster search. Do you think that more than one out of the two hundred can dash a quick solution to "FizzBuzz" off the top of their head? Now perfom the same exercize on a "control group" consisting of your colleagues. Compare results. It does seem like a drag over the phone, but after you've had a morning where three straight applicants came in for an interview and failed, you don't want to see anyone else without them passing one or more of the five essential phone screen questions.
As for email as an alternative I'm not sure. This definitely lets them go through hours of trial and error, so you can't judge whether they more-or-less get it right off the bat.
- Oh Africa 1968-69 : eBook New Edition (Japanese Edition).
- Table of contents.
- just another scala quant.
- Good Habits for Great Coding.
- Little Stories to Tell - Book 1 (Kittle Stories to Tell)?
I don't care so much whether they get the braces right as I do whether they dash it off almost immediately. This just in: Laziness and FizzBuzz in Haskell. Someone claiming to be "Seth Gordon" wrote to say: My wife got me this for a birthday present, and I set it up in my cube. I was a little disturbed by how many of my co-workers couldn't figure out how to read it. Seth, I deleted the comment. If this is on-topic in some way and not spamacious, please write back explaining the relevance and I'll be sure to let your comment through.
In the mean time, I must admit that a desk clock in binary does sound interesting, so I've modified the link to support the raganwald hosting costs. Thanks for the idea. My comment was meant to be continuing on the theme of "amazement at what so many people who code for a living can't figure out". In fairness, I should also clarify that the people who were stumped by the clock were co-workers at a previous job. It's just too darn pretty to do it any other way.
Why Can't Programmers.. Program?
However, I felt that the version with a compose method on Procs was a bit of a Platypus. It was a little Rubyish and a little Schemish, but not beautiful in either context. I settled on writing a version that used a consistent SICP -sh philosophy. I think if you're going to do the Ruby thing properly, you should do something clever with blocks rather than Procs.
That just seems more Ruby-ish somehow. This post has been removed by the author. Probably the cleanest, simplest way to solve it in ruby. OMG, I am a system admin, and I have always been very careful not to call myself a developer.. I can definatly design a program or system.. What you are saying here is that perhaps I should apply for Dev jobs?? It has been something I have never really done because I always figured good devs are all kick ass coders and I, by my own definition, am not but a okay one..
As for those who are all education happy.. A degree is a wonderful thing for advancement in management, but when you are looking for someone who can DO something, there is NO replacement for experience and the true hacker attitude and thirst for knowledge. If you want middle management drones, hire a University grad, if you want someone who is going to be Code Warrior, or a Systems Guru, hire someone who has been doing computers when they were 6 and live, eat and breath them day in, and day out.
The guys I know who I would call coders.. I just gave my non-programmer wife a 5 minute Ruby lesson and she was able to write a FizzBuzz program in another 5. After spending the morning doing college-hire interviews and seeing evidence that a CS degree does not mean the ability to code, this is a depressing commentary on the state of CS education.
- Mental Illness: Consequences When The Brain Misfires?
- Commentary Critical and Explanatory - Book of Daniel (Annotated) (Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 27).
- About coding the“FizzBuzz” interview question.
Throwing in some java love! I didn't see the need for Active Records in this particular example:. If I may be so bold, really none of the solutions here are anywhere close to code I would want to reuse. While FizzBuss rules are simple enough to code as a four line match statement, the match statement is the problem, not the solution for real world cases. In a similar real world example, I built a testing situation where I accumulated the results of dozens of tests in a single string. The reusable bit is the idea that I have a way of taking a value and applying multiple tests to it, and either returning the original value converted to another type, this case string or a message of type string, in this case.
Some future reuse case might have different input and output types. But let's just stick with integers and strings for now. The goal of a fizzbuzz program is to apply multiple tests to a value, such that if no test succeeds, the original value is passed through.
Another feature of the fizzbuzz problem is that the results of the tests are concatenated. Every example I have seen in the original posting, and in the comments to this point have added a line in the match or switch statement to test modulo 15 and return "FizzBuzz". That is great when you want to stop processing tests after the first match. But that isn't really the heart of the FizzBuzz problem. But, here is the problem, especially with reusability and extending the program.
Suppose we introduce "Klunk" as a new rule, and we make this rule be true when n modulo 2 is true. By adding one rule, a Match statement would double the number of cases it would need to test. And, not only that, if you code the Match statement incorrectly, and put the tests out of order, the Klunk test would end all matching ahead of the FizzBuzzKlunk test, and so you would never see it. AND, to top it all off, after you have coded up the match statement, the client comes and says, "I don't want "FizzBuzzKlunk", I want "KlunkFizzBuzz", because the Klunk comes from 2, and 2 comes before 3, and, with a match statement, you have already hard coded those composite strings.
Okay, so what is the solution? So, the solution is concatenation rather than a match statement. Note that FizzBuzz has a special case where if no test succeeds then the original value is used. If that rule isn't going to change, then we can code a single case solution in F as:.
Then, it recursively calls the applyRules function , but with the tail of the list of rules and an updated resultText. Each rule in the list is a function that takes a number and returns either an empty string, or a string like "Fizz", "Buzz", "Klunk" or whatever. And, this list of rules, can be added to or modified, even on the fly.
The order of the list does matter for the end result, which is part of the value of implementing a list. If the client comes back and asks you to implement BuzzFizz instead of FizzBuzz, all you have to do is reverse the order of elements in the list. Applying the rules is a simple one liner. The result of this line is a list of strings, which the user can print, or use for further processing. For software studies, this is a significant opportunity for acknowledging, recognizing, and understanding rhetoric as it occurs in, through, and around the development of any given software program.
Rhetorical style as demonstrated in code suggests a significance in even seemingly trivial spaces, from logical ordering to syntax to indentation.maisonducalvet.com/crcheles-sitios-de-citas.php
Why Can't Programmers.. Program?
For software, these persuasive attempts occur as computational processes, realized in the form of written code, to achieve some sort of action among audiences. By connecting together the seemingly disparate components of these communicative engagements with the computational logics they describe and argue for or against, we can more clearly and fully explore just how software works, how its authors argue for its working, and how we might experience it as a creative and deliberative set of texts and efforts at effecting social action through procedure.
Translated by George Kennedy.
Oxford: Oxford UP, Arnold, Ken. Berkeley, CA: Apress, Atwood, Jeff. Accessed August 31, Backman, Mark. Bentley, Jon. Bitzer, Lloyd. Braithwaite, Reginald. Brown, Barry.
Am I accidentally lying?
About coding the“FizzBuzz” interview question
DeVito, Joseph A. Dongarra, Jack and Piotr Luszczek. Edbauer, Jenny.