6 ms·
I had a phone interview situation like this the other day. The interviewer asked me what I thought of the C++ 11 "auto" specifier. I told him I preferred explic
by chrisbennet 9y ago
I had a phone interview situation like this the other day. The interviewer asked me what I thought of the C++ 11 "auto" specifier. I told him I preferred explicit types for pragmatic reasons and as an aside mentioned that "auto" keyword used to be used for something else in C++. He told me that wasn't true.
(Hmmm, OK. Let it slide Chris. Not going to score any points by proving him wrong...)
- scarface74 9y agoI was interviewing for a software architect position and before my now manager interviewed, i interviewed with some junior developers. I started talking about what I thought about some of the latest features of EcmaScript. One of the developers said "we don't use EcmaScript we use JavaScript".
- reificator 9y ago>> Which version of JavaScript do you use? > Mostly ES6...
- reificator 9y agoYeah, I'd probably let that one slide too. As far as auto goes, I'm in the camp of using it unless the type makes the code clearer, but I get where you're coming from. When it comes to iterators and such, that's where I think auto really shines. Those types only exist because they have to and I just don't care about having the noise there.