This is decent prolog code ;)
Typing the technical interview
31–40 of 86 posts
Re: Typing the technical interview
#32Sad to say, this is exactly the sort of magic that, as the conclusion suggests, gets people not hired. Even on this very enlightened forum people argue in favour of less knowledgeable candidates (even with all else being equal).
But the solutions shown in this series are just pointlessly esoteric. I'm not actually sure what the point of this series is.
It's to get aphyr more twitter followers.
Re: Typing the technical interview
#33This is decent prolog code ;)
Any sophisticated enough type system contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Prolog.
Re: Typing the technical interview
#34Sad to say, this is exactly the sort of magic that, as the conclusion suggests, gets people not hired. Even on this very enlightened forum people argue in favour of less knowledgeable candidates (even with all else being equal).
But the solutions shown in this series are just pointlessly esoteric. I'm not actually sure what the point of this series is.
The whole point _is_ that it's pointless esoterica.
Like music/art/religion/gourmet-cooking/morris-dancing/synchronized-swimming.
If it's "your thing", it's _wonderful_. It might not be your thing, and that's fine too.
If you're exclusively a bro-country fan, you probably don't appreciate jazz or classical - and that's OK, I hope you get immense joy from your bro-country music.
Re: Typing the technical interview
#35"One queen per row, in every legal position, for every configuration. You imagine what their startup’s about-us page would look like."
the coups de grâce!!!
Re: Typing the technical interview
#36Sad to say, this is exactly the sort of magic that, as the conclusion suggests, gets people not hired. Even on this very enlightened forum people argue in favour of less knowledgeable candidates (even with all else being equal).
But the solutions shown in this series are just pointlessly esoteric. I'm not actually sure what the point of this series is.
I took it as a commentary about how stupid tech interviews are. The scenarios all present a company rejecting someone who is clearly more skilled than the interviewer.
Re: Typing the technical interview
#37Sad to say, this is exactly the sort of magic that, as the conclusion suggests, gets people not hired. Even on this very enlightened forum people argue in favour of less knowledgeable candidates (even with all else being equal).
But the solutions shown in this series are just pointlessly esoteric. I'm not actually sure what the point of this series is.
Functional programming elitism is an interesting convergence between old-school SICP-reading academic greybeards, and modern day Haskell hipsters who like purity in their languages. Both would like to hate on imperative-coding industry squares like the technical interviewers in all of these stories.
Re: Typing the technical interview
#38It's odd. There are people who complain on Hacker News about interviewers who ask about algorithmic complexity: "when are we ever going to need this?" This is about wasting an interview demonstrating a semi-obscure technique that's fascinating but mostly useless, and it gets widely praised. Seems like it's just that fantasizing about turning the tables on an interviewer is fun, never mind whether it makes sense or no…
Are you a technical interviewer?
Re: Typing the technical interview
#39Sad to say, this is exactly the sort of magic that, as the conclusion suggests, gets people not hired. Even on this very enlightened forum people argue in favour of less knowledgeable candidates (even with all else being equal).
But the solutions shown in this series are just pointlessly esoteric. I'm not actually sure what the point of this series is.
Does it need a point? It's well written entertainment, with some neat programming trickery.
Re: Typing the technical interview
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always like to kindly remind people that sufficiently-advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
My favourite casting of this is 'any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced'.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented."
[I think I coined this one, back in the day. But I was probably preceded by someone even more damaged]