I honestly have no idea how you would know how to use a hashtable if you didn't understand how they work.
It should be really easy. You know, because they're ridiculously easy to use; which is why you find them used wildly inappropriately so often.
Knowing when it's best to use one in place of another structure is an entirely different story which can depend on the specific implementation.
That would be a much better interview question, IMHO.
Unless you're doing really basic "programming", you're going to have to know how to use a hashtable or key/value storage.
Knowing how to use a hash table is entirely different than knowing how it works or how to make one.
He should be able to come up with some answer involving "hashing", "keys", and "buckets".
If all you care about is the developer being able to use one, I have no idea why you'd expect that sort of answer? Unless they have a CS background (which doesn't seem to be the norm) I doubt they'd be able to answer the question even at a superficial level. Granted, a CS undergrad should damn well be able to answer your question. Still, I wouldn't expect anything more than the absolute basics in an interview.
I just interviewed a guy with 15 years of experience that couldn't tell me how a hash table works
Cut him some slack. There hasn't exactly been much need for the average developer to implement their own hash table in the last 15 years. I certainly wouldn't expect the average developer to understand all the issues and complexities! Well, maybe a recent CS grad, but even then I wouldn't expect them to be prepared to discuss them in more than a trivial way.
Though I am curious as to what exactly would have satisfied you in an interview? The only quick answers I could think of are pretty trivial -- anything more detailed and I'd likely spend the better part of the day answering that one question.
Objects can be handy when used appropriately (typically that means sparingly). The trick is to avoid conflating objects with OOP.
Of course, in this modern age, we're often forced to use objects to mimic other (formerly) common aggregate structures more appropriate to the task due to non-existent language support. It's a shame, really.
No. They promised to add native functions only AFTER they were lambasted in the press. They did not initially promise said app.
I've already explained this to you. I guess when facts don't fit into your preconceptions, you just ignore them?
By your "everyone else had it" criteria then, was the iPhone "incomplete" because it lacked features that every other smartphone had (such as copy/paste, apps, MMS)?
Is the current iPad incomplete because it lacks features that all the other major tablets have?
Again, the PlayBook had ALL of the features from day one that you claim it didn't have. (Email contacts and calendar.) Just because you didn't like how they implemented them doesn't change that fact. Again, if you wanted a native email app, it was just a download away on day one. Are you upset that RIM didn't pre-install it? You're REALLY stretching here.
It's not that their categorized, it's how their categorized -- more specifically, it's how their categorized in such a way that you think DPI is incomparable between the two.
You also don't seem to understand that there are often more than one way to group or categorize things and that different items will be in the same or different groups depending on the criteria you use to categorize things.
So, again, I ask -- what criteria do YOU use to determine if DPI is comparable between two variously sized displays?
I think that the answer is "nothing" because you're just making this up as you go along. If not, feel free to tell me if 9" display is comparable to a 10" display and why it is or is not comparable. Then apply that same criteria to a 7" and 8.5" display and then to an 8.5" display and a 10" display.
Is it merely the diagonal size or does the aspect ratio also factor in to your alleged criteria?
This has already been addressed. Of course, you don't care about facts that don't fit your completely uninformed preconceptions.
PlayBook did not have native email
Again, a native email client was just a download away from day one.
As I've also pointed out, Bridge was not a stopgap (it took more effort to create than a vanilla mail client) -- it was how it was intended to work. That you disagree with what the company stated officially is entirely your problem. Was it promised? Yes, but only after they took an undeserved beating in the press.
You know what's funny? My computer didn't come with a "native" email client, but no one claimed that it was missing features!
Is it? It seems to me that you're not qualified to comment on the topic at all, never having used the product. Your second-hand understand is, as I've pointed out, terribly flawed. Your beliefs don't match the facts. Your opinions, based on faulty beliefs, aren't grounded in reality.
Remember: Opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
All I've asked is that you check it out. I've even said that even if you choose to bash it after giving it a try, at least you'd have some basis for your opinion.
If my rationality conflicts with your preconceptions, that's your problem, not mine.
LOL! Please, get over yourself! This is so damn sad and pathetic! We're comparing two tablets, for goodness sakes. You seem to think that 7" vs 10" is a massive difference that put them in two totally different classes. I clearly disagree. Now consider that we're talking about specs, and that we're *already* comparing the two tablets! You decided that this particular spec isn't comparable (based on what?) and then call this a "part of basic analysis". You're seriously stretching in an effort to make sure that no spec is actually higher in the tablet you dislike. You dismissed the RAM spec and you seem desperate to dismiss the DPI spec.
So, tell me, what range of sizes are comparable in your mind? Do those apply equally across all devices, or just tablets? what about 13" compared to 10"? Is that okay? What about 7" and 8" ? How about 8" and 10"
I'm willing to bet that you don't have any objective criteria and that you're just making shit up as you go along.
I don't see why anyone should feel like an indulgent elitist prick for buying one--which is exactly what you are implying.
Where did you get that? You have some serious problems. Remember that we're talking about tablets as a want and tablets as a need -- not about iPads. Additionally, the conversation was about tablets as a need in context of work. You're the one who brought accessibility into the discussion (a topic I care a great deal about) and decided that I was some kind of elitist because I didn't consider disabilities in a short forum post?
You're completely insane. Get over yourself.
Re:So where are the rest of the super hi-res scree
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 1
I guess that depends on the developer. I've never had any trouble with it.
What? How do you mean "unhinged"? It's pretty clear that you're not familiar with the UI -- or any other aspect of the tablet at all. All I suggested was that you try it out before you pass judgement.
As for needing a BlackBerry to make full use of the PlayBook, that's just completely not true.
All I did was answer your questions -- that the facts don't match your faulty assumptions isn't my fault. Get over yourself.
There is a massive problem with checked exceptions: lazy programmers code around them to satisfy the compiler.
See any Java project for an example. Java is a bit overzealous when it comes to checked exceptions, so you'll very often find large chunks of code wrapped in a try/catch that does... absolutely nothing when an exception occurs save to ignore the error -- the modern equivalent of On Error / Resume Next.
I'm willing to bet that checked exceptions have caused more harm than good.
Re:So no one on the face of the planet uses a tabl
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 1
That's a little mean considering that I didn't say that no one needs a tablet. Though I will argue that the cases where tablets are essential for work are extraordinarily rare, and likely consist primarily of those who write tablet software and need to test on actual hardware.
That tablets can be useful or helpful for some people in their work or for accessibility reasons is different than saying that they're necessary (a need).
Traditional computers have become, through circumstance, a need for many workers. That is, the only way they can do their job is with a computer. A tablet, no matter how useful, hasn't become a need in that sense at all. Even in the disability case you mention tablets are naively used in place of other established methods and don't bring anything new aside from novelty.
A need would take them from being unable to perform some function required of them to being able to perform said function. A needed device doesn't mean "makes my job easier" it means "I can do my job now when I couldn't before" or "I can't do my job at all without it" if you prefer.
Here's a car related analogy: An auto mechanic needs a set of wrenches. They do not need a set of those new wrenches with the built-in ratchet. One is necessary for them to work, the other just makes their job easier. Do you see the difference?
Re:So where are the rest of the super hi-res scree
on
Apple Unveils New iPad
·
· Score: 1
Arbitrary scaling consumes memory and processing power,
Just about everything you do with a computer "consumes" memory and processing power. Still, scaling or re-flowing a layout isn't exactly a CPU intensive task. One less transition effect per session and I think you'd more than make up the cost! I guarantee that efficiency wasn't a factor when.. deciding what exactly? To encourage developers to target a specific resolution?
The problem is backwards compatibility. If you were to take an app from the original iPhone and put it on a putative new iPhone with, say, 50% more pixels, the icons and other screen elements (many of which are bitmaps, not vector graphics) would be smaller than expected.
Yes, that's why Apple was basically forced to exactly double the horizontal and vertical resolution -- it's the only way to guarantee consistency when automatically scaling everything up.
Since the interface is touch, the size of the elements in absolute measurements (not pixels) is critical
This is basic stuff when it comes to working with arbitrary display sizes/resolutions. IIRC, even as far back as Windows 3.1 sensible developers were working with twips instead of pixels. Again, it's not difficult to make sure that your UI adapts properly -- this is a long-solved problem. You seem to have a decent grasp of the concepts and problems so I'm not sure what your objection is (or even if you're objecting to something I've written)?
I'll be honest with you, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with your post at all. What is it that you wanted me or other readers to take away from your post?
Slashdot Mirror
Or they could just download Alice (which is much better
Tell me more
and teaches actual OOP)
I thought you said it was better?
I honestly have no idea how you would know how to use a hashtable if you didn't understand how they work.
It should be really easy. You know, because they're ridiculously easy to use; which is why you find them used wildly inappropriately so often.
Knowing when it's best to use one in place of another structure is an entirely different story which can depend on the specific implementation.
That would be a much better interview question, IMHO.
Unless you're doing really basic "programming", you're going to have to know how to use a hashtable or key/value storage.
Knowing how to use a hash table is entirely different than knowing how it works or how to make one.
He should be able to come up with some answer involving "hashing", "keys", and "buckets".
If all you care about is the developer being able to use one, I have no idea why you'd expect that sort of answer? Unless they have a CS background (which doesn't seem to be the norm) I doubt they'd be able to answer the question even at a superficial level. Granted, a CS undergrad should damn well be able to answer your question. Still, I wouldn't expect anything more than the absolute basics in an interview.
The one thing I was hoping that Windows could do for a tablet is make multi-tasking not suck!
Try WebOS or PlayBook OS if you want to see a great UI for multi-tasking on a tablet.
You can also make an octopus by nailing more legs to a dog, but it will be a very shitty octupus.
I don't think... I mean... the... what?!
Maybe he's Japanese?
Judging from the question, I doubt the fellow has a strong mathematics background. OpenGL may not be the best choice for him.
This poor guy has been writing CRUD apps for the last 20 years; how much linear algebra do you expect him to remember?
Start with something small - an early Atari 2600-class game project
Just don't write an actual Atari 2600 game. It's fun and challenging, but ridiculously difficult.
I just interviewed a guy with 15 years of experience that couldn't tell me how a hash table works
Cut him some slack. There hasn't exactly been much need for the average developer to implement their own hash table in the last 15 years. I certainly wouldn't expect the average developer to understand all the issues and complexities! Well, maybe a recent CS grad, but even then I wouldn't expect them to be prepared to discuss them in more than a trivial way.
Though I am curious as to what exactly would have satisfied you in an interview? The only quick answers I could think of are pretty trivial -- anything more detailed and I'd likely spend the better part of the day answering that one question.
I think you've hit on the truth behind the myth.
Objects can be handy when used appropriately (typically that means sparingly). The trick is to avoid conflating objects with OOP.
Of course, in this modern age, we're often forced to use objects to mimic other (formerly) common aggregate structures more appropriate to the task due to non-existent language support. It's a shame, really.
No. They promised to add native functions only AFTER they were lambasted in the press. They did not initially promise said app.
I've already explained this to you. I guess when facts don't fit into your preconceptions, you just ignore them?
By your "everyone else had it" criteria then, was the iPhone "incomplete" because it lacked features that every other smartphone had (such as copy/paste, apps, MMS)?
Is the current iPad incomplete because it lacks features that all the other major tablets have?
Again, the PlayBook had ALL of the features from day one that you claim it didn't have. (Email contacts and calendar.) Just because you didn't like how they implemented them doesn't change that fact. Again, if you wanted a native email app, it was just a download away on day one. Are you upset that RIM didn't pre-install it? You're REALLY stretching here.
It's not that their categorized, it's how their categorized -- more specifically, it's how their categorized in such a way that you think DPI is incomparable between the two.
You also don't seem to understand that there are often more than one way to group or categorize things and that different items will be in the same or different groups depending on the criteria you use to categorize things.
So, again, I ask -- what criteria do YOU use to determine if DPI is comparable between two variously sized displays?
I think that the answer is "nothing" because you're just making this up as you go along. If not, feel free to tell me if 9" display is comparable to a 10" display and why it is or is not comparable. Then apply that same criteria to a 7" and 8.5" display and then to an 8.5" display and a 10" display.
Is it merely the diagonal size or does the aspect ratio also factor in to your alleged criteria?
Which facts were not true from the beginning?
This has already been addressed. Of course, you don't care about facts that don't fit your completely uninformed preconceptions.
PlayBook did not have native email
Again, a native email client was just a download away from day one.
As I've also pointed out, Bridge was not a stopgap (it took more effort to create than a vanilla mail client) -- it was how it was intended to work. That you disagree with what the company stated officially is entirely your problem. Was it promised? Yes, but only after they took an undeserved beating in the press.
You know what's funny? My computer didn't come with a "native" email client, but no one claimed that it was missing features!
Okay, so you DON'T have any objective criteria then for classifying tablets by size.
That figures. I didn't think you put any thought in to it at all.
Like I said before, whatever makes you feel better.
Is it? It seems to me that you're not qualified to comment on the topic at all, never having used the product. Your second-hand understand is, as I've pointed out, terribly flawed. Your beliefs don't match the facts. Your opinions, based on faulty beliefs, aren't grounded in reality.
Remember: Opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.
All I've asked is that you check it out. I've even said that even if you choose to bash it after giving it a try, at least you'd have some basis for your opinion.
If my rationality conflicts with your preconceptions, that's your problem, not mine.
LOL! Please, get over yourself! This is so damn sad and pathetic! We're comparing two tablets, for goodness sakes. You seem to think that 7" vs 10" is a massive difference that put them in two totally different classes. I clearly disagree. Now consider that we're talking about specs, and that we're *already* comparing the two tablets! You decided that this particular spec isn't comparable (based on what?) and then call this a "part of basic analysis". You're seriously stretching in an effort to make sure that no spec is actually higher in the tablet you dislike. You dismissed the RAM spec and you seem desperate to dismiss the DPI spec.
So, tell me, what range of sizes are comparable in your mind? Do those apply equally across all devices, or just tablets? what about 13" compared to 10"? Is that okay? What about 7" and 8" ? How about 8" and 10"
I'm willing to bet that you don't have any objective criteria and that you're just making shit up as you go along.
I don't see why anyone should feel like an indulgent elitist prick for buying one--which is exactly what you are implying.
Where did you get that? You have some serious problems. Remember that we're talking about tablets as a want and tablets as a need -- not about iPads. Additionally, the conversation was about tablets as a need in context of work. You're the one who brought accessibility into the discussion (a topic I care a great deal about) and decided that I was some kind of elitist because I didn't consider disabilities in a short forum post?
You're completely insane. Get over yourself.
I guess that depends on the developer. I've never had any trouble with it.
What? How do you mean "unhinged"? It's pretty clear that you're not familiar with the UI -- or any other aspect of the tablet at all. All I suggested was that you try it out before you pass judgement.
As for needing a BlackBerry to make full use of the PlayBook, that's just completely not true.
All I did was answer your questions -- that the facts don't match your faulty assumptions isn't my fault. Get over yourself.
Whatever makes you feel better.
It's much easier than you think.
There is a massive problem with checked exceptions: lazy programmers code around them to satisfy the compiler.
See any Java project for an example. Java is a bit overzealous when it comes to checked exceptions, so you'll very often find large chunks of code wrapped in a try/catch that does ... absolutely nothing when an exception occurs save to ignore the error -- the modern equivalent of On Error / Resume Next.
I'm willing to bet that checked exceptions have caused more harm than good.
COBOL isn't even close to dead. The financial world runs on COBOL.
Just for fun:COBOL: It’s Not About the Language
That's a little mean considering that I didn't say that no one needs a tablet. Though I will argue that the cases where tablets are essential for work are extraordinarily rare, and likely consist primarily of those who write tablet software and need to test on actual hardware.
That tablets can be useful or helpful for some people in their work or for accessibility reasons is different than saying that they're necessary (a need).
Traditional computers have become, through circumstance, a need for many workers. That is, the only way they can do their job is with a computer. A tablet, no matter how useful, hasn't become a need in that sense at all. Even in the disability case you mention tablets are naively used in place of other established methods and don't bring anything new aside from novelty.
A need would take them from being unable to perform some function required of them to being able to perform said function. A needed device doesn't mean "makes my job easier" it means "I can do my job now when I couldn't before" or "I can't do my job at all without it" if you prefer.
Here's a car related analogy: An auto mechanic needs a set of wrenches. They do not need a set of those new wrenches with the built-in ratchet. One is necessary for them to work, the other just makes their job easier. Do you see the difference?
Arbitrary scaling consumes memory and processing power,
Just about everything you do with a computer "consumes" memory and processing power. Still, scaling or re-flowing a layout isn't exactly a CPU intensive task. One less transition effect per session and I think you'd more than make up the cost! I guarantee that efficiency wasn't a factor when .. deciding what exactly? To encourage developers to target a specific resolution?
The problem is backwards compatibility. If you were to take an app from the original iPhone and put it on a putative new iPhone with, say, 50% more pixels, the icons and other screen elements (many of which are bitmaps, not vector graphics) would be smaller than expected.
Yes, that's why Apple was basically forced to exactly double the horizontal and vertical resolution -- it's the only way to guarantee consistency when automatically scaling everything up.
Since the interface is touch, the size of the elements in absolute measurements (not pixels) is critical
This is basic stuff when it comes to working with arbitrary display sizes/resolutions. IIRC, even as far back as Windows 3.1 sensible developers were working with twips instead of pixels. Again, it's not difficult to make sure that your UI adapts properly -- this is a long-solved problem. You seem to have a decent grasp of the concepts and problems so I'm not sure what your objection is (or even if you're objecting to something I've written)?
I'll be honest with you, I'm really not sure what you're trying to say with your post at all. What is it that you wanted me or other readers to take away from your post?
Which is why I said "some" and not "most" or "all" :)
Some people actually do Need computers for work. Tablets, not so much...