3 ms·

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I address it (briefly) in a follow-up: https://www.natemeyvis.com/on-studying-for-your-upcoming-job-objections-and-replies.html

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I address it (briefly) in a follow-up: https://www.natemeyvis.com/on-studying-for-your-upcoming-job-objections-and-replies.html https://www.natemeyvis.com/on-studying-for-your-upcoming-job.... People might not know what the code base is actually like; they have incentives to overstate its quality; and, even if they can point you to a relevant, authoritative book, that doesn't entail that the hour spent with it is better than an hour spent learning a tool.

bcbrown 4y ago
I still disagree, but I think I better understand the disagreement now. I find it easiest to learn a new language by starting with the canonical beginner's book, e.g. the Pickaxe book for Ruby. I find it hard to learn tooling like CI/CD, logging/metrics, etc by reading or through personal projects, I much prefer to learn those on-the-job as necessary. It seems like it might be the inverse for you. Even if a new codebase isn't exactly 'Effective Java' quality, it's good to have that reference to better articulate to yourself exactly how the codebase is flawed.