3 ms·

Nadya, I don't understand the vitriol in your reply. If you think I'm being unreasonable not hiring someone who doesn't understand those basic aspects of the Ja

Nadya, I don't understand the vitriol in your reply. If you think I'm being unreasonable not hiring someone who doesn't understand those basic aspects of the Javascript language, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning. Please share it if you don't mind.

is_true 8y ago
I think he is being sarcastic. That code is a nightmare and if a company has code with that cognitive overhead then they better get cleaning that mess.
Nadya 8y ago
I was being very heavily tongue in cheek. Your knowledge tests that people understand implicit conversions in Javascript to be able to find the equivalent boolean values. !!( " ") !!("") !!(undefined === null) You probably want to test for any falsey value though. So the interviewee understanding the ToBoolean spec [0] would be what you actually want to be testing for. if (!x) { // interviewee should be able to answer for which values of `x` this condition would run // this shows they understand which values are falsey and which values are truthy } The knowledge being tested would be "the same" but in a different, and I feel more direct, way. I felt your test was testing their knowledge of implicit conversion and not truthy/falsey values, so I wrote purposefully confusing code that uses implicit conversion. "If everyone can easily understand what's going on, there's no harm writing code like that!" /s [0] http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/index.html#sec-toboolean http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/index.html#se...
- rhapsodic 8y ago
  Nadya, whether or not that's the best thing to test for is beside the point. All I'm saying is that, in my view, a professional Javascript developer should know those things. And apparently, a lot of people on HN disagree with me.
  - Nadya 8y ago
    >Nadya, whether or not that's the best thing to test for is beside the point. What you test on is almost as important as how you test on it. Interviews go both ways after all. I think a majority of people aren't disagreeing that a professional should know these things - but asking them to "rattle off an answer to [question]" is looked down on. It reeks of the "reverse a binary tree" or "implement [some sorting algorithm]" type of questions. I consider myself a Javascript professional (in so much that I am paid primarily for the Javascript work I do) and I had no issue knowing the answer to the three items listed. If I was asked to rattle them off the top of my head as some sort of Fizzbuzz Filter equivalent - I'd thank you for your time and leave the interview. I agree people should know the answers - which (as you've pointed out) is the point you're trying to get across. But how you share that point, much like which questions you ask, is important.
    - rhapsodic 8y ago
      I think you're reading too much into the phrase "rattle off". By that I simply meant that the interviewee should know those things well enough to answer correctly and confidently. And it still amazes me that this position seems to be controversial here on HN. There are people who have expressed unequivocal agreement, to be sure, but a significant number seem to see that stuff as obscure arcana that a developer would not typically need to know.

is_true 8y ago

I think he is being sarcastic. That code is a nightmare and if a company has code with that cognitive overhead then they better get cleaning that mess.

Nadya 8y ago

I was being very heavily tongue in cheek. Your knowledge tests that people understand implicit conversions in Javascript to be able to find the equivalent boolean values. !!( " ") !!("") !!(undefined === null) You probably want to test for any falsey value though. So the interviewee understanding the ToBoolean spec [0] would be what you actually want to be testing for. if (!x) { // interviewee should be able to answer for which values of `x` this condition would run // this shows they understand which values are falsey and which values are truthy } The knowledge being tested would be "the same" but in a different, and I feel more direct, way. I felt your test was testing their knowledge of implicit conversion and not truthy/falsey values, so I wrote purposefully confusing code that uses implicit conversion. "If everyone can easily understand what's going on, there's no harm writing code like that!" /s [0] http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/index.html#sec-toboolean http://www.ecma-international.org/ecma-262/6.0/index.html#se...

rhapsodic 8y ago
Nadya, whether or not that's the best thing to test for is beside the point. All I'm saying is that, in my view, a professional Javascript developer should know those things. And apparently, a lot of people on HN disagree with me.
- Nadya 8y ago
  >Nadya, whether or not that's the best thing to test for is beside the point. What you test on is almost as important as how you test on it. Interviews go both ways after all. I think a majority of people aren't disagreeing that a professional should know these things - but asking them to "rattle off an answer to [question]" is looked down on. It reeks of the "reverse a binary tree" or "implement [some sorting algorithm]" type of questions. I consider myself a Javascript professional (in so much that I am paid primarily for the Javascript work I do) and I had no issue knowing the answer to the three items listed. If I was asked to rattle them off the top of my head as some sort of Fizzbuzz Filter equivalent - I'd thank you for your time and leave the interview. I agree people should know the answers - which (as you've pointed out) is the point you're trying to get across. But how you share that point, much like which questions you ask, is important.
  - rhapsodic 8y ago
    I think you're reading too much into the phrase "rattle off". By that I simply meant that the interviewee should know those things well enough to answer correctly and confidently. And it still amazes me that this position seems to be controversial here on HN. There are people who have expressed unequivocal agreement, to be sure, but a significant number seem to see that stuff as obscure arcana that a developer would not typically need to know.