21–30 of 80 posts
Probably didn't pass the interview. The implementation was rather simplistic and low quality. Here's a better enterprise version: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Though the fact that it was written some years ago might be a weakness. Some interviewers might prefere a more modern, distributed solution.
Probably didn't pass the interview. The implementation was rather simplistic and low quality. Here's a better enterprise version: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Though the fact that it was written some years ago might be a weakness. Some interviewers might prefere a more modern, distributed solution.
Probably didn't pass the interview. The implementation was rather simplistic and low quality. Here's a better enterprise version: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Though the fact that it was written some years ago might be a weakness. Some interviewers might prefere a more modern, distributed solution.
Gorgeous. I'm not versed well enough in the theory to validate his code, but I know enough to see where he's going with this. As an aside, there's a lot of rightful complaining about the interview process. I've been on both sides and it sucks either way. As a hiring manager for a small company, we never had the 'process' that bigger companies have, so it was always a seat of the pants decision. Not my favourite thing…
> validate his code > by Naomi Liu
Gorgeous. I'm not versed well enough in the theory to validate his code, but I know enough to see where he's going with this. As an aside, there's a lot of rightful complaining about the interview process. I've been on both sides and it sucks either way. As a hiring manager for a small company, we never had the 'process' that bigger companies have, so it was always a seat of the pants decision. Not my favourite thing…
You could have at least clicked on the LinkedIn link before assuming the author was a guy... https://www.linkedin.com/in/naomi-w-liu/
Overengineering is an actual problem. For a tiny example, I'll see things like:
enum MAGIC = 67; // explanation
...
foo(MAGIC);
foo(67); // explanation
I also see things like an object fleshed out with all kinds of member functions that are never used.
Gorgeous. I'm not versed well enough in the theory to validate his code, but I know enough to see where he's going with this. As an aside, there's a lot of rightful complaining about the interview process. I've been on both sides and it sucks either way. As a hiring manager for a small company, we never had the 'process' that bigger companies have, so it was always a seat of the pants decision. Not my favourite thing…
You could have at least clicked on the LinkedIn link before assuming the author was a guy... https://www.linkedin.com/in/naomi-w-liu/
"We work hard, we play hard" in case anyone missed it :-)
Probably didn't pass the interview. The implementation was rather simplistic and low quality. Here's a better enterprise version: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Though the fact that it was written some years ago might be a weakness. Some interviewers might prefere a more modern, distributed solution.
A multi core one, with lockless data structures.