51–60 of 84 posts
I’d walk out. Never, ever take a job given to you for solving a riddle. Everyone else there will have gotten theirs the same way and it won’t be great.
If a candidate were suggesting this as their serious FizzBuzz implementation fit for production, I'd have a hard talk with them about readability.
Realistically this is an appropriate joke answer to a joke question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, so it's the nil address?
No, it's the address past the end of the array {'\0'}.
Here's how I unpack this: ""[1] is the 0 (termination) byte. The 0 byte is then interpreted as an address -- the nil address.
But what's the use of asking for the address of the null terminator? Where is that stored exactly?
Once you have undefined behavior, you lose the ability to reason about your entire program.
Thus, this program does not solve the problem.
It demonstrates a lack of knowledge about undefined behavior in C++.
Rating: Absolutely would never hire this candidate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The address of the nil byte + 1
But isn't `""` 0 terminated? So the first offset past the nil byte is 0, interpreted as an address.
The code uses "" as an arbitrary address, and ""[1] as that address + 1.
This way this-"" gets you 1-based index into the array.
It assumes the compiler dedfuplicates strings, making the behavior of this program undefined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much structure can a fizzbuzz have exactly?
How much structure would you like? https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...
Sometimes I wonder why some dev teams take 10x longer to develop some functionality than what I would consider reasonable.
Then I see code like this.
You wouldn't torture him. You would just zero the probability of getting an offer. There's no SW house or colleague in his right mind that would want a developer that writes obfuscated and needlessly complex to understand code.
A playful response to the mind numbing idiocy of fizzbuzz.