Fizz Buzz: Enterprise Edition • Hacker News Board

Re: Fizz Buzz: Enterprise Edition

#31

Post by mimiflynn » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 5:24 PM UTC

jxf wrote: post #2

Funny, but a little too obvious. What if you did a Poe's Law version of this? That is, try to create the most contrived parody of a solution to FizzBuzz possible, but one which still fools at least 50% of interviewers into thinking it's a legitimate response.

The obviousness is probably to avoid flames.

I'd love to see a branch of this with your suggestion, though... and maybe a script that would automatically generate a file structure that reflect the namespace of serious business with which one is interviewing. You know, for fun ;)

Re: Fizz Buzz: Enterprise Edition

#32

Post by BSousa » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 5:25 PM UTC

rjzzleep wrote: post #6

lol, cracked me up. I met some c# guy who did the whole enterprise thing in his version, but it wasn't tongue in cheek at all. in my head I went, this is why the whole ms enterprise stack sucks balls. the sad part is that they actually think it's good to abstract away something really simple. EDIT: removed the link, sorry for offending you dude

And rails security is why the whole rails stack sucks balls. the sad part is that they actually think it's good to be agile on something critical

See, easy to over generalise.

Edit: And amazingly just 12 minutes ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5395645

Re: Fizz Buzz: Enterprise Edition

#33

Post by Terretta » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 5:25 PM UTC

mosburger wrote: post #14

This is obviously bogus. Where are the XML configuration files?

This needs at least 70 maven dependencies.

Re: Fizz Buzz: Enterprise Edition

#34

Post by selter01 » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 5:26 PM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #5

This would be hilarious if it weren't so painfully accurate for some code bases I've had the misfortune of working with.

how?!?

Re: Fizz Buzz: Enterprise Edition

#35

Post by fournm » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 5:26 PM UTC

niggler wrote: post #12

fmstephe wrote: post #9

I love this. I just wish it was a joke. This is a daily reality for so many of us.

do you put .java. in your package names? That one stood out as really strange (others were par for the course)

I've not seen it directly in the package names, but I've definitely seen project hierarchies with source/java even though no other languages were used (or going to be used, for that matter).

Re: Fizz Buzz: Enterprise Edition

#36

Post by joshrotenberg » Mon, Mar 18, 2013, 5:27 PM UTC

fournm wrote: post #8

georgemcbay wrote: post #5

This would be hilarious if it weren't so painfully accurate for some code bases I've had the misfortune of working with.

This is my day job in a nutshell. Somewhere around the 5th folder click I couldn't decide if I wanted to laugh or cry.