4 ms·
I don't disagree. But scope is something that's easily taught. And the term "maintainability" is subjective. Your team decides what's maintainable. So showi
by cerrelio 10y ago
I don't disagree. But scope is something that's easily taught. And the term "maintainability" is subjective. Your team decides what's maintainable. So showing someone the door because they aren't aware of your version of "maintainable" is silly.
You can play this language-game all day with your candidates (and yourself), but it's largely a waste of time. I'd take someone who can "do" things, is willing to make mistakes, and willing to learn over someone who thinks "good coding styles" are set in stone and stubbornly adheres to them.
- sangnoir 10y ago> But scope is something that's easily taught. True, but this is not expected for an experienced mid-level/senior role. I would expect a senior developer to not only know the language but know the potential pitfalls. > And the term "maintainability" is subjective. Nothing subjective about the downsides of polluting the global scope; it shouldn't take a genius to figure out how this could lead to hard-to-debug bugs. Interviewers are interested in differentiating between candidates who have this knowledge and those who do not, so the answers to these seemingly "low-level" questions are surprisingly enlightening.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tene 10y agoYes, scope is very easy to learn, which is why it's so damning when you encounter someone who claims multiple years of experience with Javascript, and doesn't understand the most-basic fundamentals of scoping.