skip to content »

emp-rp.ru

Automatic updating djia

automatic updating djia-39

It’s effectively a declaration that “programmers” are a different class of people in possession of some unquantifiable gift, and it’s beneath them to justify their value. The costumes may change, but my 2011 commentary remains remarkably relevant. Of course, there are a few categories that certain countries continue to dominate: Disqualified for actually turning me on. I’m forced to admit that again this year, there are a few outfits I actually don’t mind: Overall hotness trumps the cheesy leaves.

The punchline is that the interviewer hires a car salesman who’d sold brown cars with walnut interiors. Our hypothetical carpenter was effectively arguing that even if he’d only ever hammered together pine stud walls he could easily learn to do finish carpentry with walnut for a client very particular about his browns.The main premise of this complaint about programming interviews is that a programmer is a programmer is a programmer, and the details don’t matter, and that’s straight-up bullshit. If the overall software system will be distributed, then the architecture needs to take rollout into consideration.Shrugging off context is only a professional qualification for field-goal kickers. I don’t think it’s used much (if at all) for stud wall construction, but it is occasionally used for post-and-beam construction, which involves either metal brackets or traditional cut joinery, and for nonstructural finishings.The exceptions—coders who really want nothing more than to follow some formula and take no responsibility for the result—are exactly who interviewers are trying to weed out.Of course, there are carpenters who are creative craftsmen of the first order.Given all of the above, the true subtext of this “joke” is that calling yourself a programmer entitles you to a job.

But the really galling part is that the “calling yourself a programmer” bit .

Among other things: I’ve never met anyone in the software industry who is happy with the hiring process, and that includes everyone who’s designed the process.

Nobody seems to have a solution to separating the potential stars from the mehs, and anyone who claims they do either doesn’t have enough perspective to understand the difficulty of the problem (young interviewers who have been trained in one particular hiring style seem to be blessed with the arrogance of blind faith), or they’ve perfected the art of hiring the mediocre (a sufficiently rigorous process can probably rule out almost all the disastrous hires, but will likely also lose a few stars…and it’s finding the stars that is the problem).

In this hypothetical, we’re talking about a job building houses. Any real carpenter would know the differences between varieties of wood, between the two major types of wood construction, and between the different roles wood can play in a project.

Houses are most commonly built using platform framing of stud walls made from spruce, pine, or fir. And he’d definitely know which projects he’d worked on that involved which.

My experience is that most people have a natural intuition that every event can be traced back to a prior event that caused it.