Absolutely. The Microsoft interview tests are not there to see if you can program... They already think you can program since they gave you an interview.
The tests are to see how you Think. If you have a systematic approach to solving problems then you have won the test. The problems are designed to stump you with stupid mistakes.
And above all, he is right, they are there to see you workin under pressure. Relax a bit. Same goes for tests.
Don't sweat it so much man... Assignments are a good way to prove your true skill. Also, get to know the professors and they are more likely to cut you a little slack come grade time.
Remember, good programmers will always find work in the end... Good ones that managed to graduate are even better off:-)
maybe for a hardware or software product to be deemed "linux compatible" all It should need is a preliminary OPEN SOURCE driver, and OPEN API's / Well Documented features.
If the linux community has atleast a semi-functional driver and truely open documents about the product; you know damn well it will atleast SOON be linux compatible for everyone.
This way, If it doesnt work for you; atleast you have the tools to fix it.
In therms of user interface rather than graphical user interface design we have to think of a "program" as 2 things, a) a collection of code to perform tasks and b) a way of interfacing with the tasks available An ideal computer would have a collection of code which the application is capable of performing a task with a standard interface. This is where the data crunching would go on. The data crunching core would have a intelligently designed descriptor file which would explain in a computer-friendly format what the applications core is capable of providing. In a worst-case-situation; like within a graphical user interface such as gnome; this descriptor file would give the gui enough information to automatically generate a useable tho poorly optimized graphical interface. on the same note; this descriptor could be used to produce a text-based interface on the fly equivalent to a console mode; as well as future interfaces such as voice. Obviously; these unoptimized interfaces won't cut it in most cases so the application designers can write a optimized gui; or voice interface or optimized console. Regardless, this model is incapable of accomodating every sort of application; but it would give all programs a better capability to adapt to better or worse "interfaces" as well as future computing platforms while still offering the full featured gui systems we are used to today. Surely Photoshop (or gimp; don't lynch me) won't lend well to a voice or text interface; but building with a file describing the api as a standard feature can't hurt... and really if you want to type in "draw type=spraypaint weight=102 position=123,345 color=39ff93" why not let them?
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely. The Microsoft interview tests are not there to see if you can program... They already think you can program since they gave you an interview.
The tests are to see how you Think. If you have a systematic approach to solving problems then you have won the test. The problems are designed to stump you with stupid mistakes.
And above all, he is right, they are there to see you workin under pressure. Relax a bit. Same goes for tests.
Don't sweat it so much man... Assignments are a good way to prove your true skill. Also, get to know the professors and they are more likely to cut you a little slack come grade time.
:-)
Remember, good programmers will always find work in the end... Good ones that managed to graduate are even better off
maybe for a hardware or software product to be deemed "linux compatible" all It should need is a preliminary OPEN SOURCE driver, and OPEN API's / Well Documented features.
If the linux community has atleast a semi-functional driver and truely open documents about the product; you know damn well it will atleast SOON be linux compatible for everyone.
This way, If it doesnt work for you; atleast you have the tools to fix it.
In therms of user interface rather than graphical user interface design we have to think of a "program" as 2 things, a) a collection of code to perform tasks and b) a way of interfacing with the tasks available An ideal computer would have a collection of code which the application is capable of performing a task with a standard interface. This is where the data crunching would go on. The data crunching core would have a intelligently designed descriptor file which would explain in a computer-friendly format what the applications core is capable of providing. In a worst-case-situation; like within a graphical user interface such as gnome; this descriptor file would give the gui enough information to automatically generate a useable tho poorly optimized graphical interface. on the same note; this descriptor could be used to produce a text-based interface on the fly equivalent to a console mode; as well as future interfaces such as voice. Obviously; these unoptimized interfaces won't cut it in most cases so the application designers can write a optimized gui; or voice interface or optimized console. Regardless, this model is incapable of accomodating every sort of application; but it would give all programs a better capability to adapt to better or worse "interfaces" as well as future computing platforms while still offering the full featured gui systems we are used to today. Surely Photoshop (or gimp; don't lynch me) won't lend well to a voice or text interface; but building with a file describing the api as a standard feature can't hurt... and really if you want to type in "draw type=spraypaint weight=102 position=123,345 color=39ff93" why not let them?