Y
HN Search
Hacker News Search
new
|
comments
|
top
|
jobs
picks_at_nits
searching PlanetScale…
1.
▲
2.
▲
3.
▲
4.
▲
5.
▲
6.
▲
15 ms
·
91.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
That might be a red-herring. When times are good, people get positive reinforcement for doing bad things. Thing might hire the next programmer, and the Carpenter gets the next job, and everybody assumes that the right best way to conduct an
92.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
The story is really about what’s wrong with this process. You say the candidate should have written production code. And yet, this isn’t a production problem, it’s a made-up CS101 problem. How does it make sense to ask a CS101 question, but
93.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
And yet... At the end of the story, all three participants (recruiter, company, and candidate) have failed to get what they want. Somehow, this does not come across as a fantasy being played out, more of a cautionary tale.
94.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
Not to worry. I have it on good authority that the author thinks all three fictional parties are at fault.
95.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
These would have been excellent questions for Christine to ask! I made an es6 fiddle: http://www.es6fiddle.net/i6fralh4/ Is this what you mean? --- const takeIterable = (numberToTake, iterable) => ({ [
96.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
Where does the solution given use On space?
97.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
Very true, You have to decide at some point whether you’re going to have everything be callable, or everything be an object, and thereafter be consistent. The functions `takeIterable` and `statefulMapIterableWith` are both written to take a
98.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
Link should probably be to the tip of the master branch, not a specific tree id: https://github.com/bolshchikov/js-must-watch/tree/master
99.
▲
by
picks_at_nits
12y ago
From the footnote: "Well, actually, this does not work for arrays that contain undefined as a value, but we are not going to see that in our examples. A more robust implementation would be (array) => array.length === 0, but we are d