Interviewing programmers: coding test example explained

Post by anatoly » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 4:52 PM UTC

  void condense_by_removing(char *z_terminated, char char_to_remove) {
    char *p = z_terminated;
    for (; *z_terminated != 0; ++z_terminated) {
      if (*z_terminated != char_to_remove) {
        if (z_terminated != p) *p = *z_terminated;
        p++;
      }
     }
     if (*p != 0) *p = 0;
  }

Post by edanm » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 4:58 PM UTC

jemfinch wrote: post #74

edanm wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for loops are better than while loops for looping over arrays. I'll try and explain my reasoning: Whenever you see a `for` loop, it tells you something that a `while` loop doesn't. It tells you the kind of loop you're about to do. A `for` (usually) means you're going to be looping over an array, with a specific length, with a specific "step" (usually one). This is information you immediately get by seeing a `…

> I think for loops are better than while loops for looping over arrays. I'll try and explain my reasoning: > Whenever you see a `for` loop, it tells you something that a `while` loop doesn't. It tells you the kind of loop you're about to do. I won't disagree with that in theory, but I don't really think the "for" loop is the solution. The real solution, I think, is a "foreach" construct (whether it's a loop built in…

Post by wheaties » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 5:01 PM UTC

rottencupcakes wrote: post #92

So, I've never been involved in hiring, so I have no perspective on the state of the job market. However, I have trouble believing that anyone who would be willing to rep themselves as a "C Developer" couldn't write this particular piece of code in a manner similar to the author's solution in a matter of minutes. Do these FizzBuzz articles keep getting promoted to the front page to boost everyone's collective egos, o…

Post by pavel_lishin » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 5:02 PM UTC

ComSubVie wrote: post #12

roel_v wrote: post #8

Am I OCD when I cringe when I see 'p_rite' where he (I think) means 'p_write'? That alone would knock a few points off a candidate doing this test when he's interviewing with me. 'rite' can mean 'write' or 'right' or even 'allright' - why the unnecessary confusion?

I think he used p_rite so that the variable names length is identical to p_read, which can make the code look more pretty.

Post by roel_v » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 5:08 PM UTC

nocman wrote: post #89

roel_v wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a simple misspelling though. If someone would write 'int countar = 0;' because he doesn't speak English well or whatever, that's fine. But spelling 'write' as 'rite' is indicative of a certain mindset - of favoring a certain quirky sense of beauty or style over clarity. And I didn't say it'd be autoding, just that it lowers my opinion of the author a bit. If the rest was OK that would be noise in between…

Some would argue that if it lowers your opinion of the author it is an "autoding" already (whether you're willing to admit it or not). Take this scenario: You have a single position you are interviewing people for. You've got two candidates with entirely even qualifications. The only perceivable difference between them is that one of them writes interview code with variable names spelled like in the original post. Th…