Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Stick to the important stuff (Score 1, Offtopic) 266

Of course they're seeing "nuances". The whole thing was a carefully crafted wedge issue upon which the Republicans could scream and shout. And ridiculously, they were screaming about a health care bill based almost entirely on a Republican health care bill -- RomneyCare.

But the ACA is government intrusion! (Actually, it is, in a good way.) It's dying! (CBO says it's stable, though it is having issues in some Republican-based states who fought it in the first place.) It's raised my rates! (It's true that rates have increased, though not as much as rates would have increased without it. And part of that is through elimination of "insurance" plans that some people paid for that covered basically nothing at all.)

Regardless, now that the Republicans COULD pass the same bill, they're stalling why they try to figure out the actual political impact of kicking millions of registered voters off the ACA and off of Medicaid, not to mention dramatically raising insurance rates for millions of others.

So much for "more people will have more access to more affordable health care."

Comment Re:Focus on a few key things (Score 1) 347

As I mentioned above, If your employee is going to be developing apps that move information from an endpoint to a screen on the app, letting the user fill it out, and then submitting validated data, then give them that sort of problem. Give them an API endpoint, a spec, some credentials, and tell 'em to come back in tomorrow with a demo app that works. Then code review the projects.

Extra points for proper validation techniques, clean code, use of a git repo, proper error checking, and so on. Bonus points for a clean UI design, use of modern techniques like RFP or MVVM, assistive, localized interface design, and so on.

Then if they pass the code review, hire them on a 3-month probationary basis to see if they meld well with your culture and teams.

Comment Re:Focus on a few key things (Score 1) 347

Essentially, you weed out the qualified applicants by giving them math problems involving Fibonacci sequences and quadratic equations.

You know, the kind of stuff that I as an iOS developer doing banking apps talking to OAuth2 services and JSON backends databases do daily.

I "might" do this sort of thing if I was hiring and had someone in front of me with no sample code, OSS contributions, side-projects, or apps to their credit... but using it to weed out initial candidates... even those with the above credentials... is just stupid.

And it's ESPECIALLY stupid if those problems are not indicative of the problems they're going to be solving if they're hired.

If, say, your employee is going to be developing apps that move information from an endpoint to a screen on the app, letting the user fill it out, and then submitting validated data, then why by god don't you give them that sort of problem? Give them an API endpoint, a spec, some credentials, and tell 'em to come back in tomorrow with a demo app that works. Then code review the projects.

Extra points for proper validation techniques, clean code, use of a git repo, proper error checking, and so on. Bonus points for a clean UI design, use of modern techniques like RFP or MVVM, assistive, localized interface design, and so on.

You might find more of the "qualified" candidates that can do the work you need as opposed to just those skilled at answering puzzle questions on the fly.

Comment Re:Focus on a few key things (Score 2) 347

I take exception to the expectation that they're supposed to complete a company assignment on their own time. Where I work now they tend to run a "book club" where once a week the current group gets together and discusses the latest chapter or so, asks or answers question, and a moderator/mentor is often present to explain why we do what was discussed.

(Or why, after consideration, we decided NOT to do that...)

Comment Re: Very simple (Score 1) 347

If you're looking at someone else's code (or even your own, a year later), would you rather see...

for (i = 0; i 3; i++) // Loop three times
{
            some_fn(i);
}

Or...

for t in 0.. MAX_TASKS {
            scheduler.grantTimesliceToTask(t);
}

Not only was the first comment worthless, the second version is entirely readable and understandable without it. Refactored and with a good comment, the code might be... // BUG-484 Background tasks stalled while waiting for network requests, so...
scheduler.serviceBackgroundTasks()

Again, and as mentioned, the what is now obvious, but the comment explains WHY you're doing this rather odd thing at this point in time.

Comment Re:Very simple (Score 1) 347

"Breaking code into small units results in excessive call / return pairs and consequent poor performance..."

Or not, depending on your environment. Breaking OOP code into small parts, for example, can make an object easier to subclass. And in some modern languages, like Swift, smaller functions may in fact be inlined into other functions and loops by the compiler/optimizer.

Creating massive functions simply because you assume that such code is more performant is a classic case of pre-optimization and, 99 times out of 100, doesn't matter anyway. Whereas code readability and maintainability matters a great deal.

Comment Re:But lets raise minimum wage! -'earn'? (Score 1) 440

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." - Thomas Jefferson

As Jefferson indicates, freedom and rights are always in tension, your rights verses those of others. You live in a society, among others, and as such you have no "right" or "freedom" to do whatever you wish, without regard to the harm to your actions might inflict on others. Hence rules and laws, and thus those that enforce them.

Further, you and I both benefit from a stable, peaceful society that provides public goods and services like roads, clean water, sewage and waste treatment, and so on.

You argue against "collectivist" societies and systems, without providing a good alternative to the benefits they provide. Perhaps you're of a pure libertarian or capitalist bent, but somehow choose to ignore the unchecked power and corruption such systems have historically given to business and corporations, who in turn care nothing for an individual's "rights".

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain

Working...