3 ms·
But the solutions shown in this series are just pointlessly esoteric. I'm not actually sure what the point of this series is.
by mwcampbell 10y ago
But the solutions shown in this series are just pointlessly esoteric. I'm not actually sure what the point of this series is.
- bigiain 10y agoThe whole point _is_ that it's pointless esoterica. Like music/art/religion/gourmet-cooking/morris-dancing/synchronized-swimming. If it's "your thing", it's _wonderful_. It might not be your thing, and that's fine too. If you're exclusively a bro-country fan, you probably don't appreciate jazz or classical - and that's OK, I hope you get immense joy from your bro-country music.
- sbierwagen 10y agoIt's to get aphyr more twitter followers.
- na85 10y agoI took it as a commentary about how stupid tech interviews are. The scenarios all present a company rejecting someone who is clearly more skilled than the interviewer.
- skybrian 10y agoYeah, well, that's based on a fallacy. You're assuming that there's a single scale and being more "skilled" on that scale means you should get hired. But that's not necessarily what interviewing is all about. Type-level programming is cool but wildly inappropriate for most jobs - that's part of the humor. You are not your job, or your resume, or your ability to pass an interview. There are all sorts of ways people can be elite that are mostly orthogonal to a particular job.
- Apocryphon 10y agoFunctional programming elitism is an interesting convergence between old-school SICP-reading academic greybeards, and modern day Haskell hipsters who like purity in their languages. Both would like to hate on imperative-coding industry squares like the technical interviewers in all of these stories.
- imh 10y agoDoes it need a point? It's well written entertainment, with some neat programming trickery.
- rimliu 10y agoIt's like "let's rewrite X in JavaScript" but on a couple of magnitudes higher level.
- EliRivers 10y agoThat's OK, you're not the target audience.