4 ms·
Whenever we interview a candidate, the one thing we give high premium on is structure, the rest come next. bad variable names, long complex code...can easily b
by component 10y ago
Whenever we interview a candidate, the one thing we give high premium on is structure, the rest come next.
bad variable names, long complex code...can easily be adjusted. If the candidate doesn't have a good understanding of how to structure a code (what goes where, for what purpose, separation on concern...), it'll take much more effort to teach that candidate than to teach the bad variable namer.
Properly structured code naturally leads to a better performing software, even if/when a bug arises it'll be easier to spot / test.
All that being said, if a coder names a variables, 'a', 'aa', 'aaa', 'aaaa' that's a serious red flag.
- Roboprog 10y ago"I ran the code through minify, but it's bigger now?!?"
- component 10y agoI don't understand. Why would one submit a minified code for a review? A friend of mine used to work at a place where one of the coder actually used 'a', 'aa', 'aaa'...when naming variables.
- Roboprog 10y agoI was joking. The example sort of looks like something that would fall out of minify -- although 'a' - 'z' would have to be used/visible in a scope before 'aa' would be generated as a name.
- component 10y agoI should have clarified. The coder style of naming might seem to be run through minifier, but the coder actually wrote 'a', 'aa', 'aaa'... My guess is that the coder saw a minified code a took it as a standard or something.
- Roboprog 10y agoAnd that was the joke: that the original code "out-minified" minify - that running the original gibberish through minify would NOT make it any smaller :-)
- notacoward 10y ago> Whenever we interview a candidate, the one thing we give high premium on is structure Yeah, because amorphous programmers are often unpleasant to work with. Sorry, I knew what you meant, but the image of a jellyfish in a chair was to good to pass up.