Yea, because no applicant would find good code, mask it up a bit and pass it off as their own.
And what do you think their odds of being able to tweak said code, or explain it thoroughly, including why they took that approach rather than an alternate one would be?
People with overly rigid communication styles or those that fail in the ability to see through analogies are going to be a pain in your ass because they often can't get along well with or understand others in a work environment.
Unfortunately, these are generally the people asking the puzzle question.
The fact that you refuse to share code you written for others to a potential employer says something about you.
That they respect IP laws, and are not willing to simply hand over their current employer's secrets to whomever asks for them.
The fact that you don't have any code that you haven't written for anyone but yourself also says something about you.
No, it doesn't. There are any number of reasons in which I don't have code to show you, and not a one of them would have anything to do with how well I could do the job.
Why? Tell me, why should someone have to program outside the office to show they're interested or good? Would you expect a janitor to want to clean up other people's shit outside the job?
Given that this question doesn't have a good point, and there are far superior methods of divining the same information, then yes, it is a stupid question.
Honestly, will you give the same answer if you were applying for the position of a programmer and your technical lead or architect (under whom you will eventually be working) was interviewing you and was asking this question?
Yes. Because if the technical lead is asking shit like this, then they clearly have no idea what the hell they're doing, and would probably suck large portions of ass to work with.
Here's the thing: I could probably talk with you about A* for a while, and maybe prototype something out. It's not going to be perfect, though. But you have to recognize that the interview environment is vastly different from the development environment.
Further, unless A* is something you actually use in your business, and require me to know it intimately instead of being able to use a library, then there's really no reason to ask that question.
At the same time, it's pretty arrogant of you to think that there's something special about your workplace that the employee can't get anywhere else. And just because someone doesn't have a good reason to desire your workplace over all others doesn't mean that they're going to be a Wally. They very well might be passionate about software development, but writing your CRUD apps isn't really something that's going to ignite passion.
I don't mean that last statement to mean that your company personally only writes the basic, uninteresting CRUD app. But odds are, what you guys write isn't that much cooler or awe inspiring than the shop down the street.
I might take that position, actually. Assuming I'm not the critical guy, or the only one doing the job. And it would be far better if there were at least one or two more senior guys above me that I could learn from. Part of how your skills grow is throwing yourself into uncomfortable situations.
And really, what's the worst that could happen? You find out you're not a good fit for the company, and 3 months later you're right back where you started.
No. There is absolutely no reason for employers to be assholes. Further, if they were to actually offer good working conditions, they would probably get better people.
And who gives a fuck about crapping on the clock? It's what, 10 minutes?
The line between "We want to see how you work so we can gauge your technical abilities" and "We want a bit of cheap and/or free labor" is very, very thin.
I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting.
Most people who say this are usually guilty of writing code that is almost incomprehensible.
Even if you think your code is so clear that a retarded monkey could figure it out, you should still put some comments in there, particularly explaining the "Why" of what you're doing.
No. If they are going to expect you to do work, then they should either provide you with an excellent machine to do said work on (not "junk"), or they should compensate you for the use of your device.
This is business as usual in the "real world"/quote.
Offloading costs to employees should not be seen as "business as usual", but rather of employers trying to fuck their workers one more time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, because no applicant would find good code, mask it up a bit and pass it off as their own.
And what do you think their odds of being able to tweak said code, or explain it thoroughly, including why they took that approach rather than an alternate one would be?
People with overly rigid communication styles or those that fail in the ability to see through analogies are going to be a pain in your ass because they often can't get along well with or understand others in a work environment.
Unfortunately, these are generally the people asking the puzzle question.
The fact that you refuse to share code you written for others to a potential employer says something about you.
That they respect IP laws, and are not willing to simply hand over their current employer's secrets to whomever asks for them.
The fact that you don't have any code that you haven't written for anyone but yourself also says something about you.
No, it doesn't. There are any number of reasons in which I don't have code to show you, and not a one of them would have anything to do with how well I could do the job.
Why? Tell me, why should someone have to program outside the office to show they're interested or good? Would you expect a janitor to want to clean up other people's shit outside the job?
Given that this question doesn't have a good point, and there are far superior methods of divining the same information, then yes, it is a stupid question.
Honestly, will you give the same answer if you were applying for the position of a programmer and your technical lead or architect (under whom you will eventually be working) was interviewing you and was asking this question?
Yes. Because if the technical lead is asking shit like this, then they clearly have no idea what the hell they're doing, and would probably suck large portions of ass to work with.
Here's the thing: I could probably talk with you about A* for a while, and maybe prototype something out. It's not going to be perfect, though. But you have to recognize that the interview environment is vastly different from the development environment.
Further, unless A* is something you actually use in your business, and require me to know it intimately instead of being able to use a library, then there's really no reason to ask that question.
You asking that question has just revealed you have no respect for me. So you deserve none in return.
At the same time, it's pretty arrogant of you to think that there's something special about your workplace that the employee can't get anywhere else. And just because someone doesn't have a good reason to desire your workplace over all others doesn't mean that they're going to be a Wally. They very well might be passionate about software development, but writing your CRUD apps isn't really something that's going to ignite passion.
I don't mean that last statement to mean that your company personally only writes the basic, uninteresting CRUD app. But odds are, what you guys write isn't that much cooler or awe inspiring than the shop down the street.
I might take that position, actually. Assuming I'm not the critical guy, or the only one doing the job. And it would be far better if there were at least one or two more senior guys above me that I could learn from. Part of how your skills grow is throwing yourself into uncomfortable situations.
And really, what's the worst that could happen? You find out you're not a good fit for the company, and 3 months later you're right back where you started.
No. There is absolutely no reason for employers to be assholes. Further, if they were to actually offer good working conditions, they would probably get better people.
And who gives a fuck about crapping on the clock? It's what, 10 minutes?
Only as long as the assignment isn't something that they would actually use. Otherwise they're just asking for free labor.
The line between "We want to see how you work so we can gauge your technical abilities" and "We want a bit of cheap and/or free labor" is very, very thin.
No. That sort of question is a piss poor way of doing so.
Not really. Even if it's not, if they are going to have nearly identical HR classifications, they should be in the same pay range.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that your code is not as clear as you claim it is.
I'm not a big fan of commenting code. I prefer code possessing such clarity that it is self-commenting.
Most people who say this are usually guilty of writing code that is almost incomprehensible.
Even if you think your code is so clear that a retarded monkey could figure it out, you should still put some comments in there, particularly explaining the "Why" of what you're doing.
I agree that changing previous contracts is somehow abusive against carriers
Given the abuse that most carriers like to inflict on their customers, I'm not going to be shedding any tears for them.
Yeah, no. I will always applaud this kind of regulation.
Bull fucking shit. This does not discourage anything, except maybe dickish behavior by telcoms.
No. The more formal the training, the more likely the person is to do something unbelievably short sighted and stupid for short term gains.
Sorry I still believe there is a strong market for sub $300 laptops.
So you're saying that Dell's army of market researchers and experts was a waste, and they should have just come to ask you?
No, the clothing and grooming argument is simply retarded. Drop it.
We also demand they wear clothes and occasionally bathe, but we do not buy them clothes nor hose them down if they cannot handle it themselves
That is just a plain stupid argument.
No. If they are going to expect you to do work, then they should either provide you with an excellent machine to do said work on (not "junk"), or they should compensate you for the use of your device.
This is business as usual in the "real world"/quote.
Offloading costs to employees should not be seen as "business as usual", but rather of employers trying to fuck their workers one more time.