5 ms·

That or they're the super egotistical/arrogant type but too dumb to know you know more than them and assume somehow you're the person who don't know what they'r

That or they're the super egotistical/arrogant type but too dumb to know you know more than them and assume somehow you're the person who don't know what they're talking about Although in that case bullet dodged.

xarope 2y ago
reminds me of the (apocryphal) joke about James Gosling (who invented Java in 1994); interviewer in 1999: we are looking for someone with 10 years of java experience. james: I invented java 5 years ago.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  well that guys not getting hired!
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    You are joking but this may be true. I once was interviewing for an interesting job and the topic was general knowledge of a system made of A, B and C (all were similar). The interviewer did not know much but insisted on some very deep details about B. I told him more than was available in the docs already and at some point I said I would need to peek in the code to say more. He told that this was too difficult for me because only people who were part of the team who designed that would understand. I told him that I wrote almost by myself the A part so it won't be too difficult to catch up with B. I did not get the job (ultimately a happy ending) and was told that I did not know enough on A (the part I wrote).
    - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
      I am joking but not really, basically it's my belief that any place asking for 10 years of a 5 years old technology is going to be really sensitive about anyone with an "attitude"
reidrac 2y ago
In that case you won't do well in the interview because "bad attitude" or "lack of soft skills".
bryanrasmussen 2y ago
fun fact, I once interviewed at a place in which the tech lead interviewing me had confused the terms pass by reference and pass by value - that is to say he understood that in JavaScript objects were passed by reference and what that meant on the practical effects of assigning object a to b, but he thought the technical term for this was pass by value and the technical term for things that were passed by value was pass by reference (so according to him strings were passed by reference and objects were passed by value) and no explanation on what a reference was and how pass by reference works and why it made sense to call it pass by reference could penetrate.
- abrezas 2y ago
  just a pedantic detail, strings are passed in javascript by reference, they are just immutable
  - wyclif 2y ago
    I just went down the rabbit hole of reading this post and the entire thread. As someone who has been looking for a junior job, it's probably the most depressing thing I've ever read. I've been on the market for over 6 months, I've sent countless resumes out and tried various techniques, but I'm not even getting a nibble.
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    I guess technically it's passed the reference to the string right, so if I say a = "stringA" there is a reference to "stringA" and that is assigned to a if I then say a = "stringAA" there is another reference created for "stringAA" and assigned to a, while "stringA" is sitting around somewhere waiting to be garbage collected in a few milliseconds - that's way complicated to think about and not sure if I haven't messed it up. Easier to just say pass by value and forget about it. OR make all your variables consts and then it don't matter.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      No, thats not correct. Value and reference assignment behave the same way for = (well, reference is hiding the fact that it’s not the literal string/object but a reference to it, a number is just the number). Where it matters is in passing arguments to a function call. If you pass 42, it’s not mutable so incrementing, or doing anything, will not modify the original variable you passed-in. For a reference, using = will assign a new value (not change the original) but modifying the referenced object like, say a.b = 5 WILL change the original object. It’s not really “pass by reference” that a C/C++ developer would understand but it seems to be the term that has stuck.

xarope 2y ago

reminds me of the (apocryphal) joke about James Gosling (who invented Java in 1994); interviewer in 1999: we are looking for someone with 10 years of java experience. james: I invented java 5 years ago.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
well that guys not getting hired!
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  You are joking but this may be true. I once was interviewing for an interesting job and the topic was general knowledge of a system made of A, B and C (all were similar). The interviewer did not know much but insisted on some very deep details about B. I told him more than was available in the docs already and at some point I said I would need to peek in the code to say more. He told that this was too difficult for me because only people who were part of the team who designed that would understand. I told him that I wrote almost by myself the A part so it won't be too difficult to catch up with B. I did not get the job (ultimately a happy ending) and was told that I did not know enough on A (the part I wrote).
  - bryanrasmussen 2y ago
    I am joking but not really, basically it's my belief that any place asking for 10 years of a 5 years old technology is going to be really sensitive about anyone with an "attitude"

reidrac 2y ago

In that case you won't do well in the interview because "bad attitude" or "lack of soft skills".

bryanrasmussen 2y ago

fun fact, I once interviewed at a place in which the tech lead interviewing me had confused the terms pass by reference and pass by value - that is to say he understood that in JavaScript objects were passed by reference and what that meant on the practical effects of assigning object a to b, but he thought the technical term for this was pass by value and the technical term for things that were passed by value was pass by reference (so according to him strings were passed by reference and objects were passed by value) and no explanation on what a reference was and how pass by reference works and why it made sense to call it pass by reference could penetrate.

abrezas 2y ago
just a pedantic detail, strings are passed in javascript by reference, they are just immutable
- wyclif 2y ago
  I just went down the rabbit hole of reading this post and the entire thread. As someone who has been looking for a junior job, it's probably the most depressing thing I've ever read. I've been on the market for over 6 months, I've sent countless resumes out and tried various techniques, but I'm not even getting a nibble.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  I guess technically it's passed the reference to the string right, so if I say a = "stringA" there is a reference to "stringA" and that is assigned to a if I then say a = "stringAA" there is another reference created for "stringAA" and assigned to a, while "stringA" is sitting around somewhere waiting to be garbage collected in a few milliseconds - that's way complicated to think about and not sure if I haven't messed it up. Easier to just say pass by value and forget about it. OR make all your variables consts and then it don't matter.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    No, thats not correct. Value and reference assignment behave the same way for = (well, reference is hiding the fact that it’s not the literal string/object but a reference to it, a number is just the number). Where it matters is in passing arguments to a function call. If you pass 42, it’s not mutable so incrementing, or doing anything, will not modify the original variable you passed-in. For a reference, using = will assign a new value (not change the original) but modifying the referenced object like, say a.b = 5 WILL change the original object. It’s not really “pass by reference” that a C/C++ developer would understand but it seems to be the term that has stuck.