Yeah, I guess, at some level this is satirizing that technical interviews almost demand golf code. When you’re writing such a small program, there’s an upper limit of how good “good code” can be. To look better than other candidates, you need to apply ‘clever’ (derogatory) strategies, where you solve it with a slightly more efficient solution. No one would care about this efficiency in a real-world scenario…
When you’re writing such a small program, there’s an upper limit of how good “good code” can be.
The funny thing is enough candidates flub getting a working solution that writing something that does what it’s supposed to puts you in the upper 80% already
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Awesome post, though I only got like 5% of it
it is highly technical and JVM specific :)
Simply beautiful
it’s art
@yogthos … written by @aphyr
Man if someone started writing assembly in a technical interview I may pass right there. Good code is different than golf code.
Yeah, I guess, at some level this is satirizing that technical interviews almost demand golf code. When you’re writing such a small program, there’s an upper limit of how good “good code” can be. To look better than other candidates, you need to apply ‘clever’ (derogatory) strategies, where you solve it with a slightly more efficient solution. No one would care about this efficiency in a real-world scenario…
The funny thing is enough candidates flub getting a working solution that writing something that does what it’s supposed to puts you in the upper 80% already