I can glue jQuery together, I don't need to know FizzBuzz!
-
-
How is that any different from what gfycat does?
-
How is that any different from what gfycat does?
The above GIF started at a whopping 50MB. After conversion, the final file is 3.4MB and loads at warp speed. Pretty sweet, right?
Gyfcat always seems to do the opposite.
-
Imgur started doing that, with a separate extension, that is. As far as I can Google.
-
@Onyx said:
IE6
EPIC BELGIUM
sigh
The glorious Kingdom of Belgium would like to emphasize it has nothing to do with IE6.
The name of our country is already considered offensive, there is no reason to associate it with that abomination.
-
> ###Preferred qualifications
- Experienced with Object Oriented JavaScript and modern JavaScript libraries such as Ember, Backbone, or Angular.
I've played around with these and understand the concepts. I wouldn't say I'm proficient, but I definitely have 'experience with'. Sure, this could be a lack in my qualifications for the position but again, the verbiage in the sections above is way more oriented around design and prototyping skills.
Oh, hey, this job as an A&E nurse requires experience dealing with medical trauma.
I once put a plaster on my finger after a pretty nasty papercut. I wouldn't say I'm proficient, but I definately have 'experience with'.
-
That's a good extreme demonstration of the sort of resume padding people do all the time but then don't write whiny blog posts about when someone calls them on it.
-
https://jsfiddle.net/y4bs5drf/
Maybe took me 5 mins, and most of that was determining that it was easier to operate on a list with spans than to figure out how to hide naked text nodes. Or are designers not expected to understand CSS either?
-
I'm a little disappointed you don't get emergent 15x behavior out of the 3x and 5x.
-
This ... doesn't look right.
Filed under: [Baking without knowing how to use an oven](#tag)
-
https://jsfiddle.net/y4bs5drf/
Maybe took me 5 mins, and most of that was determining that it was easier to operate on a list with spans than to figure out how to hide naked text nodes. Or are designers not expected to understand CSS either?
for(var i=1; i<=100; i++){I was told there would be no math.
-
It's just the global window.event isn't it? If you pass it as a function param you get the specific event, but if you dont (or typo it) then using event just defaults to window context and reads window.event
Pretty sure that it wont necessarily work how you want in IE or Chrome either if you have a lot of events going on.
-
damn i was
ed, multiple times.either way, using a property/variable name that doesnt exist always resolves to the window context's property if one exists. The only issue here is that firefox doesnt have a window.event property at all. Which makes me wonder why they have half the properties that they DO have in the window object on FF.
-
I'm a little disappointed you don't get emergent 15x behavior out of the 3x and 5x.
Like this?
-
The Bugs category is 🐛🐜🐝🐞🐌🏩.
-
This guy tries to use his street cred to make her sound less terrible. His claim to fame is, basically, knowing jQuery and CSS. Big fucking deal, guy.
Not a big surprise.
The few times Coyier writes something original and current for his CSS Tricks site, it usually ends up in sub-optimal hacks riddled with undisclosed/undiscovered caveats. The rest of the content are (optionally outdated) rehashes and summaries, or 'guest' posts.
I place that between quotation marks, because most are actually 'copied-with-permission' posts masking as content written originally for CSS Tricks. A lot of that material is also donated by people that seem to have equally questionable knowledge and are simply parroting others or reinventing square wheels.
All signs point to the guy being a firm part of the 'copied-from-SO' generation himself, and in this comment he even freely admits so, while he continues to see himself as some kind of 'rockstar' or 'cowboy' (i.e. roughing it out). A lot of the vitriol that is rightfully being spewed back in Lara's face is maybe hitting a liiii---tle bit too close to home.
-
Yes, but we're talking about JS. You can't fizzbuzz in HTML.
I would be fascinated to see that done without using any scripting.
HTML + CSS is Turing complete, so do you count CSS in the HTML family? Even if CSS is not eligible, there's probably some concocted way to get it done purely via (X)HTML. XSLT, maybe? Or something with more base technologies; recursively nesting frames and framesets that encodes Fizzbuzz, perhaps?
-
jQuery's got a quite nice one
Would that be the de-facto default datepicker that ships with jQuery UI? Because that thing is a stinking pile of fermenting feces.
The fact that the framework developers have been unable to properly align that PoS with the new framework widget architecture over the course of more than 5 major revision cycles and in fact seem to be actively avoiding editing it at all should be telling you all you need to know.
-
Because that thing is a stinking pile of fermenting feces.
Are you planning to do anything about it, or to just sit there
bitchingcomplaining about it?
-
Are you planning to do anything about it, or to just sit there bitching complaining about it?
I petitioned for some project time to develop an alternative in-house for my employer.
Our first implementation was just finished last week and we're currently reviewing code, touching up where necessary and gearing up to run a beta inside an internal project before shipping it out on our clients' websites and webapps.
The current architecture/design is two-tiered with a logic tier that handles composition of month calendar data objects and a second, modular UI tier. The second tier is currently implemented using controllers, view templates and computed bindings that are part of the MVVM framework we base most of our modern stuff on.
The whole thing runs on top of MomentJS for date handling and potential future time handling. (As stated; the UI tier is modular and the base is extensible enough to add it on without causing breakage.)
I'm already way past planning to do something about it.
-
Would that be the de-facto default datepicker that ships with jQuery UI? Because that thing is a stinking pile of fermenting feces.
It certainly beats 3 separate <select>s for month, day, and year.
-
The current architecture/design is two-tiered with a logic tier that handles composition of month calendar data objects and a second, modular UI tier.
That seems like a lot of work for a date picker.
-
Dates are hard.
Well, unless you're a bloody idiot and only care about dates in a single political region, eg the USA.
-
It certainly beats 3 separate s for month, day, and year.
It pretty much is 3 separate pickers. I assume you've never had to use the thing with users that want to visually enter birthdates, when the dropdown-list interface on month and year comes into play to quick-switch months and years?
Untrained users seem to not get the fact that the year dropdown's values offer a subset based on currently selected year. It's understandable as well; having to open->select->close->open->select->etc. until the list reaches the value you actually want is asinine.
That seems like a lot of work for a date picker.
Not if you consider UI/UX tailored to input method and screen-size.
The DOM the jQuery UI datepicker renders is completely hard-coded and ill-suited to adjustments for different designs. Moreover, by default all its clickable surfaces are far too small to ever be usable on mobile devices, many of which do not offfer a comprehensive date picker on the native date input type. And it doesn't even take touch input into account to begin with.
-
FUCKING PRE SCREEN YOUR CANDIDATES IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR PROGRAMMING SKILL JESUS FUCKING CHRlST PEOPLE IT'S NOT HARD.
-
Well, unless you're a bloody idiot and only care about dates in a single political region, eg the USA.
They're still hard if you stay in the US, because timezones. And daylight savings. Or not, depending. (I know, that's adding time to dates, but same thing.)
-
Yeah there's like two hundred something posts in here. I'm not gonna read them through. I'll cut straight to the rant.
#interviews
Fizz buzz is piss. Considering that any idiot could write a far more accurate test of programming skill—or better yet: find an existing one—that the candidate could complete in the comfort of their own home, the only explanation for why people still persist in taking candidates through to the interview just to waste everybody's time writing piss is that there's some kind of dick-stroking ego-boost thing going on, like “HA HA HA look at the non-programmer struggle, don't you wish you were a godly programmer like us? Foolish mortal!”#desired skills
Employers pad their job descriptions at least as much as candidates pad their resumes. I recently encountered a job listing looking for 2014 graduates, ideally having experience with COM and telephony API.I don't need to know shit about WSO2 to do my current job and I (crosses self) never will.
It's really easy to imagine how a little bit of familiarity with JavaScript can make a UI designer's life easier, and that is the amount of familiarity this person already has.
#developer UI
Everybody talking about how we don't need UI specialists anymore now that we have web frameworks is wrong. Ember is a crapfest and so are you, for using it.Developers hate complexity like fat people hate cake, but that mentality just doesn't make for good usability. If you were to offer me a UI made by a world champion fizz buzzer versus one made by someone who gets a headache even trying to imagine that shit, I know which one I'm going for (the bad one, probably—I'm kind of a hypocrite like that)
#bitching
Ok you and me, we live and breathe stuff like this. Fizzbuzz seems so fundamental and obvious to us that we can't even comprehend the mindset that would look at that kind of problem and just outright reject it; refuse to even consider it as something worth solving. Basically, how this designer lot looks to us, that's how you lot look when you start criticizing feminism.
-
Fizz buzz is piss.
Meh...you've totally missed the entire point of it, seems to me.
Basically, how this designer lot looks to us, that's how you lot look when you start criticizing feminism.
In the spirit of @blakeyrat, I'm going to tell you that I found this to be a funny statement.
-
@Buddy said:
Fizz buzz is piss.
Meh...you've totally missed the entire point of it, seems to me.
As always, it is possible. Though I have read the blog post where it was introduced, which I thought did a good job explaining the rationale behind it, and I've been in a lot of fizz buzz threads. The angle I was aiming for was that, while I do understand the stated aim of the test, I believe that either fizz buzz is not the best way to solve that problem, or it is being used incorrectly.In the spirit of @blakeyrat, I'm going to tell you that I found this to be a funny statement.
My only goal is to entertain.
-
The angle I was aiming for was that, while I do understand the stated aim of the test, I believe that either fizz buzz is not the best way to solve that problem, or it is being used incorrectly.
The point is to figure out if the person has any sort of a clue when it comes to programming. It performed brilliantly in this case. This is, of course, assuming they really needed someone who can program. If not, then it was a waste of time, of course, and there's no way for us to know that.
My only goal is to entertain.
Feminism fail. You should at least be trying to smash the patriarchy and working on becoming a lesbian.
-
Ok, but if they had been asked to complete fizz buzz (or an actual test of programming aptitude) before anyone even scheduled an interview, they wouldn't have had to waste time applying for a job they would have known they couldn't get, and the interviewer wouldn't have had to waste time interviewing them.
Feminism fail.
Yeah, I'm about as feminist as I am Christian: largely influenced by the teachings, but far too heretical to ever be accepted by the mainstream.
-
Ok, but if they had been asked to complete fizz buzz (or an actual test of programming aptitude) before anyone even scheduled an interview, they wouldn't have had to waste time applying for a job they would have known they couldn't get, and the interviewer wouldn't have had to waste time interviewing them.
I'll reiterate what I said before, which is that the js proficiency was "preferred," not required. So it's presumably a discriminating criterion for candidates, not an absolute filter (assuming the description was valid). Maybe they found someone as sharp as her on the design front but also capable with js.
We don't know that she was wasting her time because her js was too limited. We just know she didn't get the job in the end. That's the wrong metric to use to decide that you wasted time in an interview.
-
If we can't know what actually happened in the interview, then why aren't we taking the word of the person who actually was there?
If she says she can perform the role as advertised without needing to know fizz buzz, how can we say otherwise, without actually knowing the details of why she wasn't offered the position?
-
If we can't know what actually happened in the interview, then why aren't we taking the word of the person who actually was there?
Taking her word for what? She wasn't there when they decided whom to hire.
If she says she can perform the role as advertised without needing to know fizz buzz, how can we say otherwise, without actually knowing the details of why she wasn't offered the position
You're drawing unwarranted conclusions, which was my point. We don't know that she couldn't perform the role. We can infer that they found someone else who appeared to be a better fit. Maybe the other guy was just asking for a lower salary?
We don't know. But we do know that she wrote a whiny blog post after not getting a job.
-
I'm not drawing any conclusions from this. I already thought fizz buzz was stupid before this thread, and I'm just using this as another case study in how broken fizz buzz is. Literally every fizz buzz thread we have, I come in and say a couple words about how programming is one of the very few professions where proficiency tests can be easily generated and administered why don't we take advantage of this, maybe get a couple of likes, then people go back to discussing how annoying fizz buzz's stupid square wheels are.
-
I already thought fizz buzz was stupid before this thread, and I'm just using this as another case study in how broken fizz buzz is.
OK.
I'm not drawing any conclusions from this.
I guess not, but your assertions are still wrong.
-
But we do know that she wrote a whiny blog post
Probably the worst possible way to get her valid ideas across.
-
I'm not drawing any conclusions from this. I already thought fizz buzz was stupid before this thread, and I'm just using this as another case study in how broken fizz buzz is. Literally every fizz buzz thread we have, I come in and say a couple words about how programming is one of the very few professions where proficiency tests can be easily generated and administered why don't we take advantage of this, maybe get a couple of likes, then people go back to discussing how annoying fizz buzz's stupid square wheels are.
You can get a proper proficiency test once you blast through fizzbuzz. That would have obviously been a waste of time on this woman.
If we can't know what actually happened in the interview, then why aren't we taking the word of the person who actually was there?
If she says she can perform the role as advertised without needing to know fizz buzz, how can we say otherwise, without actually knowing the details of why she wasn't offered the position?
Obviously the other side decided she couldn't perform the job, at least not to their specification. Or they just found someone better.
I sympathize with her. I'm still bitter at NASA for not accepting my assertion I'd make a bitching astronaut.
-
I'm still bitter at NASA for not accepting my assertion I'd make a bitching astronaut.
They did accept your assertion.
They decided they didn't want to hear "Houston... I have a problem" 200 times a day...
-
Why didn't you apply in Russia or Europe, then?
-
data FizzBuzz = Fizz | Buzz | FizzBuzz | Plain Int
-- must manually derive Show because we want to show "1" instead of "Plain 1", etc. instance Show FizzBuzz where show Fizz = "Fizz" show Buzz = "Buzz" show FizzBuzz = "FizzBuzz" show (Plain n) = show n fromInt :: Int -> FizzBuzz fromInt n | n `mod` 15 == 0 = FizzBuzz | n `mod` 3 == 0 = Fizz | n `mod` 5 == 0 = Buzz | otherwise = Plain n main :: Int -> IO () main n = putStrLn . show . (fmap fromInt) $ [1..n]
-
I just think you're putting way too much faith in the ability of interviewers to adequately interview tech candidates. It's a hard problem, and there aren't enough people in the world that are good at it. Just as fizz buzz is a simple litmus test for candidates, I propose that it is an equally simple indicator of an interviewer's technical ability: if you can't piss out a simple programming challenge of your own in under an hour, you probably shouldn't be interviewing technical candidates.
So when a person makes a frustrated post about how they keep getting screened out by the same question, even though they know they don't need to be able to do that kind of thing to be good at their job, and a bunch of other people from the same field agree whole heartedly, I'm inclined to believe them.
Look at it this way: it's hard enough finding actual developers that know how to write code, now you're requiring that from your frontend devs too? What's next, asking your janitors to solve fizz buzz? “I'm sorry doctor, I realize you're the most talented neurosurgeon in the entire world, and you're a great fit for this position, but if you can't solve fizz buzz you're not gonna cut it”?
-
I just think you're putting way too much faith in the ability of interviewers to adequately interview tech candidates. It's a hard problem, and there aren't enough people in the world that are good at it. Just as fizz buzz is a simple litmus test for candidates, I propose that it is an equally simple indicator of an interviewer's technical ability: if you can't piss out a simple programming challenge of your own in under an hour, you probably shouldn't be interviewing technical candidates.
It usually takes hours to fully interview a candidate. For an average programmer, FizzBuzz is like 5 minutes. That's a good ROI if it can save you 3 hours of your time by eliminating a bad candidate early.
And for good candidates, it's like a warm-up round. The truth is, coders love solving stuff like that. See how many mere mentions of FizzBuzz turn into coding competitions on WTDWTF. So just going through a simple toy like that at the start of the interview can be a good way to relax and build up confidence for the real challenges ahead.
So when a person makes a frustrated post about how they keep getting screened out by the same question, even though they know they don't need to be able to do that kind of thing to be good at their job, and a bunch of other people from the same field agree whole heartedly, I'm inclined to believe them.
Look at it this way: it's hard enough finding actual developers that know how to write code, now you're requiring that from your frontend devs too? What's next, asking your janitors to solve fizz buzz? “I'm sorry doctor, I realize you're the most talented neurosurgeon in the entire world, and you're a great fit for this position, but if you can't solve fizz buzz you're not gonna cut it”?
True, pure designers don't need to know how to solve a FizzBuzz.
But note, her claim is that her great value, her "thing", is not just being a designer, but also dipping a toe into the coding side. Look at the comments, she outright claims she "knows how to code" in a jQuery demonstration (it might be posted above too). And if you're gonna claim you know how to code, you need to be able to solve FizzBuzz. It's that simple.
And for fuck's sake, let's have a reality check here. Do you realize how simple FizzBuzz type stuff is? Elementary schools almost teach enough coding to be able to solve that. High schools definitely. Literally going through a single 2 hour javascript tutorial would have been enough to get her up to speed. The fact that she's been working in the field for years, and that she prides herself on "teaching technical literacy to non-technical designers", not doing this absolutely minimal amount of effort (and then blaming the test afterwards) is a terrible indication of her skills. No wonder she wasn't hired.
-
So when a person makes a frustrated post about how they keep getting screened out by the same question, even though they know they don't need to be able to do that kind of thing to be good at their job, and a bunch of other people from the same field agree whole heartedly, I'm inclined to believe them.
OR. They could realize that employers aren't satisfied with "pure" designer employees any more and they could upgrade their skills. I mean, if this is something that happens to them a lot (like that one guy I quoted), they should realize at some point that they could make themselves a lot more valuable to employers.
Or just be happy at the self inflicted glass ceiling and take the on-line abuse when you beclown yourself after whining about how you refuse to admit the obvious.
-
A lot of this seems
considering we don't even know if not knowing Fizzbuzz is the reason she didn't get it.
There could have been someone else who, Fizzbuzz or no Fizzbuzz, was a better applicant.
-
Two points (that may/not apply to the O-OP):
A) Don't forget HR departments exist..."Here, HR, this is a widely-used test, if they fail this they are utterly incompetent, and we will not hire them under any circumstances no matter what you (HR) think."
ii) This particular test has the virtue of being a conversation starter - there's no perfect solution... and getting the candidate to question you about whether you want a minimal solution, an extensible solution, etc... gets you going.
-
@Buddy said:
I just think you're putting way too much faith in the ability of interviewers to adequately interview tech candidates. It's a hard problem, and there aren't enough people in the world that are good at it. Just as fizz buzz is a simple litmus test for candidates, I propose that it is an equally simple indicator of an interviewer's technical ability: if you can't piss out a simple programming challenge of your own in under an hour, you probably shouldn't be interviewing technical candidates.
It usually takes hours to fully interview a candidate. For an average programmer, FizzBuzz is like 5 minutes. That's a good ROI if it can save you 3 hours of your time by eliminating a bad candidate early.
Yes, but you could have eliminated them even earlier by getting them to complete a test before you even scheduled the interview.And for good candidates, it's like a warm-up round. The truth is, coders *love* solving stuff like that. See how many *mere mentions* of FizzBuzz turn into coding competitions on WTDWTF. So just going through a simple toy like that at the start of the interview can be a good way to relax and build up confidence for the real challenges ahead.
That's what I'm saying, though, is that it's a completely different type of personality. On the one hand, you have people who love coding in itself, who know how to say Hello World in a hundred different languages, and on the other hand you have people that are good at design. I don't know how useful for loops, modulo operators, and println() are to designers, but I suspect not much. So sure, they _could_ take the time it to learn some super nerdy shit like fizz buzz, just to impress the HR drones, or they could take that same time to learn things they actually will use on the job.A lot of this seems
considering we don't even know if not knowing Fizzbuzz is the reason she didn't get it.
There could have been someone else who, Fizzbuzz or no Fizzbuzz, was a better applicant.Well, obviously trying to pass judgment on somebody we don't know from a bar of soap would be ridiculous. Even if we were able to correctly identify all her flaws what would that get us? But if you'll allow us the conceit that anything we say here could ever mean anything at all, here's one thing we can do: spread the word that if somebody's looking to assess programmers' skill, standardized tests do exist, like the one at betterprogrammer.com, or I presume there would be a similar one for whatever other language. Such tests are not only more comprehensive than fizz buzz, but they also return a result as a percentile score, a result that will be far easier to factor in to decision making than any subjective observations made while watching someone perform trivial tasks in a high-pressure situation.
-
getting them to complete a test before you even scheduled the interview.
ITYM googling the answer to the test and pasting it into an email.
-
Honestly, FizzBuzz worked perfectly here. They learned that she doesn't really know how to code, though she's familiar with some basic concepts.
-
Exactly. If I got to an interview and they wanted someone with a deep understanding of... let's say, color theory, I'd be all "well, I've dabbled, but I'm not an expert", and if that made them pass up on me, I'd just move on with life. It's not a bad thing to have specific requirements for a position that I don't meet as an applicant, it's just one of those things.
