Interviewing programmers: coding test example explained

Post by jemfinch » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 5:20 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #93

jemfinch wrote: post #74

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. 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…

I love higher language's foreach construct. Have to work with what we've got though, and in C, the `for` loop is it. By the way, I don't know what a Hoare triple is, and reading a little on Wikipedia didn't enlighten me. Any chance for an explanation?

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 5:31 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 roel_v » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 5:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #103

roel_v wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your logic. Two people who are in every respect exactly the same, but one can't spell or at least has weird, non-standard spelling habits. The rational choice here is the person who spells correctly. My point was, spelling in variable names is only a very minor factor when deciding on hiring or not hiring a candidate. If his reasoning and experience and work ethic etc. are all ok, spelling wouldn't…

His logic is that you are in fact "dinging" the candidate. He used an artificial scenario to illustrate that. In reality, you never have two candidates who are absolutely equivalent except for spelling ability. The interview process is extremely high-error, brutally timeboxed, and infamously ineffective. The most important capability you need to assess is "ability to code". You know a priori you're going to do a crap…

Post by btilly » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 5:47 PM UTC

angrycoder wrote: post #73

nickelplate wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally would count that against any candidate during an interview. I wouldn't necessarily reject them, but I would definitely count that against them. I work in Toronto, Ontario. English is not my native language, but I always do my best to ensure that my code or documentation is as close to crystal clear as possible. This starts with using correct spelling. Code is written first for humans to read, and to me m…

The counterpoint to this is that if you are they type of boss who would nit pick a candidate over something like this, he probably wouldn't want to work for you anyway. Especially when you take a quirky/cute spelling and try to expand it into inferring all sorts of other traits. It reminds me of people who say they would never hire a developer who doesn't write comments. Really? Writing comments is a precious skill t…

Post by dkersten » Thu, Jun 03, 2010, 6:05 PM UTC

anatoly wrote: post #91

Interesting. I didn't try to do the assignment when I read the first part, but just tried it now before looking at the second part. When I started to write the main loop, I felt uneasy when I realized I'd be doing unnecessary copying in the common case when char_to_remove is never found. My code ended up a tad more complex than yours due to desire to avoid that: void condense_by_removing(char *z_terminated, char char…

  void condense_by_removing(char* z_terminated, char char_to_remove) {
    int index;
    int write = 0;
    for (index = 0; z_terminated[index]; ++index) {
      if (z_terminated[index + write] == char_to_remove) {
        ++write;
      }
      if (write > 0) {
        z_terminated[index] = z_terminated[index + write];
      }
    }
  }

  void condense_by_removing(char* z_terminated, char char_to_remove) {
    int write = 0;
    for (; *z_terminated; ++z_terminated) {
      if (*(z_terminated + write) == char_to_remove) {
        ++write;
      }
      if (write > 0) {
        *z_terminated = *(z_terminated + write);
      }
    }
  }