Pure CSS FizzBuzz • Hacker News Board

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#41

Post by nawitus » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:31 PM UTC

workingandtired wrote: post #38

efbbbf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and descriptions that are not representative of the job they're trying to hire for. The position is described as a UX engineer and designer, and the applicant is expected to be experienced with JS and various frameworks for it . The story seems to be more about a person who can't read and feels entitled to a job position they're not fit for. They were unable to display knowledge of basic for loops and conditionals…

I don't disagree with you that the job expected programming in their candidate. Nor should she have rationalized away the two lines that mentioned Javascript in description. However, I do believe that there is a communication error on the part of the company. A UI/UX Designer/Engineer does not inherently require programming. In many startups, it does, as does wearing many hats. But if they're looking for someone to p…

I think the job posting clearly communicated that the applicant should at least have a basic grasp of JavaScript. On a related note, it's weird that the author claims to have experience with Ember/Angular.js or other similar frameworks without being able to write the FizzBuzz.

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#42

Post by dkersten » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:34 PM UTC

criswell wrote: post #32

d_j_s wrote: post #9

You can use css counters to output the count on non fizz, buzz or fizzbuzz iterations http://codepen.io/anon/pen/QbNLxO https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/CSS/Count...

If you don't mind the dots you can do: http://jsbin.com/resihe/1/edit

Took me a moment to see how you were doing that. Nice!

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#43

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:35 PM UTC

workingandtired wrote: post #38

efbbbf wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and descriptions that are not representative of the job they're trying to hire for. The position is described as a UX engineer and designer, and the applicant is expected to be experienced with JS and various frameworks for it . The story seems to be more about a person who can't read and feels entitled to a job position they're not fit for. They were unable to display knowledge of basic for loops and conditionals…

I don't disagree with you that the job expected programming in their candidate. Nor should she have rationalized away the two lines that mentioned Javascript in description. However, I do believe that there is a communication error on the part of the company. A UI/UX Designer/Engineer does not inherently require programming. In many startups, it does, as does wearing many hats. But if they're looking for someone to p…

> A UI/UX Designer/Engineer does not inherently require programming.

I would argue that UI/UX Designer might not, but UI/UX Engineer inherently does.

> But if they're looking for someone to program, it should be outlined in the responsibilities.

It was.

> Knowing "HTML/CSS/JS" is different than building an entire application (just an example).

FizzBuzz doesn't test ability to "build an entire application". It tests fairly minimal ability to apply logical reasoning and apply it with a programming language.

If you can't solve FizzBuzz in a programming language, its not unreasonable for a company to see that as a strong negative signal for any job requiring proficiency in the language, and JS proficiency was advertised as a requirement for the job in question.

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#44

Post by workingandtired » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:37 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #41

workingandtired wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you that the job expected programming in their candidate. Nor should she have rationalized away the two lines that mentioned Javascript in description. However, I do believe that there is a communication error on the part of the company. A UI/UX Designer/Engineer does not inherently require programming. In many startups, it does, as does wearing many hats. But if they're looking for someone to p…

I think the job posting clearly communicated that the applicant should at least have a basic grasp of JavaScript. On a related note, it's weird that the author claims to have experience with Ember/Angular.js or other similar frameworks without being able to write the FizzBuzz.

To be fair, I was a self taught programmer (albeit PHP) and I was on my second or third programming job before I came across a modulus in the wild. It's really simple basic programming theory, but not super common in live web development.

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#45

Post by zodiakzz » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:43 PM UTC

agjmills wrote: post #3

Without the JS: http://codepen.io/anon/pen/NqNKYv

With HAML :) http://codepen.io/anon/pen/MwyYey

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#46

Post by workingandtired » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:44 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #43

workingandtired wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you that the job expected programming in their candidate. Nor should she have rationalized away the two lines that mentioned Javascript in description. However, I do believe that there is a communication error on the part of the company. A UI/UX Designer/Engineer does not inherently require programming. In many startups, it does, as does wearing many hats. But if they're looking for someone to p…

> A UI/UX Designer/Engineer does not inherently require programming. I would argue that UI/UX Designer might not, but UI/UX Engineer inherently does. > But if they're looking for someone to program, it should be outlined in the responsibilities. It was. > Knowing "HTML/CSS/JS" is different than building an entire application (just an example). FizzBuzz doesn't test ability to "build an entire application". It tests f…

Like I mentioned below, as a self taught web programmer, it was years before I came across a modulus in a real-world situation. I feel like it's understandable to not have a 100% grasp on all the basics and still produce stuff.

I think the more damning thing in her case is her questioning the question and seemingly not giving it a thorough effort.

Again, just listing "HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript." by itself as a minimum qualification doesn't specify what level of knowledge is expected of you. Familiarity? Proficiency? Master? Do you need to know how v8 interprets Javascript?

I'm not making the case that the job was right for her or that she was competent enough to handle it. I'm arguing that ambiguities in descriptions wasted both her time and the company's time.

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#47

Post by livingston » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

Shorter version of pure css fizzbuzz :)

http://codepen.io/livingston/pen/xGVbGd?editors=110

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#48

Post by efbbbf » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:52 PM UTC

workingandtired wrote: post #46

dragonwriter wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A UI/UX Designer/Engineer does not inherently require programming. I would argue that UI/UX Designer might not, but UI/UX Engineer inherently does. > But if they're looking for someone to program, it should be outlined in the responsibilities. It was. > Knowing "HTML/CSS/JS" is different than building an entire application (just an example). FizzBuzz doesn't test ability to "build an entire application". It tests f…

Like I mentioned below, as a self taught web programmer, it was years before I came across a modulus in a real-world situation. I feel like it's understandable to not have a 100% grasp on all the basics and still produce stuff. I think the more damning thing in her case is her questioning the question and seemingly not giving it a thorough effort. Again, just listing "HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript." by itself as a minimum…

>doesn't specify what level of knowledge is expected of you. Familiarity? Proficiency? Master? Do you need to know how v8 interprets Javascript?

It says "experienced with OO JS". That's vague, but not so vague that it can mean "I don't even know the basic operators of the language".

And that from someone who claims they can "teach others to code". (http://notlaura.com/services/teach-me-to-fish/)

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#49

Post by dkersten » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:53 PM UTC

carlosrg wrote: post #23

workingandtired wrote: post #6

I could be wrong, but I believe the post that he's referring to as inspiration is this one: https://css-tricks.com/tales-of-a-non-unicorn-a-story-about-... A pretty interesting story about job titles and descriptions that are not representative of the job they're trying to hire for.

More like a story of someone that applied for a job that asks for Javascript skills without knowing Javascript and then blamed the company, and made a blog post/rant about it, because they hired someone else that probably fits that particular position better.

I thought so too at first (and its not like FizzBuzz is hard), but if you read the post you'll see the job advert was for design, only listing JS as "HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript" after talking about design up until then (and then only listing further JS stuff as nice to haves).

The person made clear that they can do all the design stuff and can use JS to add basic interaction to the frontend.

The job post didn't ask for a programmer. I don't see how its the designers fault for not being a programmer.

Re: Pure CSS FizzBuzz

#50

Post by efbbbf » Tue, May 12, 2015, 4:55 PM UTC

workingandtired wrote: post #44

nawitus wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the job posting clearly communicated that the applicant should at least have a basic grasp of JavaScript. On a related note, it's weird that the author claims to have experience with Ember/Angular.js or other similar frameworks without being able to write the FizzBuzz.

To be fair, I was a self taught programmer (albeit PHP) and I was on my second or third programming job before I came across a modulus in the wild. It's really simple basic programming theory, but not super common in live web development.

That's not being fair. That's your own problem. I'm also a self-taught programmer, but I don't feel like I need to compare myself to her.

The point is that she didn't fit the requirements of the job.

As a result, she did not get the job. That's pretty much end of story. If the job requires her to be "experienced with JS", that means that they want her to know the language.

And it's not just modulo. She didn't know how to convert a timecode string to seconds.

I have no idea how someone like that would be able to understand the code. Nor why she would think that "it's okay" not knowing those things and yet be an engineer at their company.

To repeat what has been said - she was not applying to a job as a designer. She was applying to a job as an engineer and designer. She didn't meet at least half the criteria (and she didn't have degrees, which is probably why they even asked her those questions to test what actual knowledge she has).