B
Bill Reed
Didn't he have something to do with the Commodores?
Didn't he have something to do with the Commodores?
M
Malcolm
Though sometimes interviewers are looking for self-confidence, which meansRichard Heathfield said:
that the higher someone rate himself the better. If faced with a
psychological test of this nature than you should always rate yourself as
well as it is possible to defend.
M
Malcolm
These can be quite good tests. If someone has bothered to learn all theJack Klein said:
details of the standard then they will certainly know C very well, and they
will probably also have attitudes that make them a good programmer.
However if you know that the minutae of the standard will be tested, and
that a great deal hangs on this test, then the temptation is to spend a long
time cramming the standard which would be better employed on doing some real
programming.
R
Richard Heathfield
Malcolm said:
I think it's quite rare for those who interview me for C-based roles to come
away from the ordeal worrying about my diffidence.
I stand by my rating, and the follow-up: "Now let's get on with the test and
see how good at C /you/ think I am".
Nowadays, it's quite rare, at interview, to come across a C test that I
can't punch a few holes in. In this "rate yourself" game, I would be very
tempted to wind up the test by saying "...and that's why the behaviour is
well-defined, even though you thought it wasn't. And that was the last
question, right? And you, the tester, got seven of them wrong, yes? Okay,
if I rate 1 out of 10, that would appear to make you a 0, at best." But of
course I would resist that temptation, on courtesy grounds.
R
Richard Heathfield
Joona said:
Whoever said it wasn't? IMHO it's a fair assumption that it's linear, in the
absence of information to the contrary.
A
Arthur J. O'Dwyer
No; you're thinking of Bill Haley.
I
Irrwahn Grausewitz
Arthur J. O'Dwyer said:
Bill Haley was a C programmer?
P
pete
Richard said:
Some information to the contrary is there,
unles you consider Dennis Ritchie to be only about about
ten times more knowledgable than "What's C?"
R
Richard Heathfield
pete said:
A reasonable point. Nevertheless, all this indicates is that the scale is
broken, since it means that anyone giving themselves a 7, say, might think
they were being suitably modest and suitably self-confident, and yet they
would only be claiming to have a tiny knowledge of C. If the scale is
log10, say, he'd be claiming only one milliritchie of C knowledge. I accept
that such knowledge is worth having, but it's unlikely to get you hired any
time soon. On the other hand, if it's log2, an interviewee who gives the
same reply is claiming a massive 125 milliritchies.
So I suppose the right answer is that the question is broken, or at least
provides insufficient information to give a meaningful answer. In this
case, however, the right answer is unlikely to get you hired unless the
interviewer is very clueful.
D
Daniel Haude
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 21:33:55 +0200,
And even then it works as expected. j is multiplied by 10. Once.
--Daniel
Serve La said:Damn, should've started at 1
And even then it works as expected. j is multiplied by 10. Once.
--Daniel
P
pete
Richard said:
0.01 dR
J
Jeremy Collins
Irrwahn said:
It was originally "Bill Haley and the Comments" I suppose, and
their name got mangled somewhere along the way...
I
Irrwahn Grausewitz
Or, the other way round:pete said:
If the scale was meant to be linear, it should start off at 0, because
otherwise someone answering "What's C?" would gain 0.1 ritchies - and
IMHO that's far too much.
I
Irrwahn Grausewitz
Jeremy said:
Ah, so it's "Rock Around The C-lock", right?
X
Xenos
I don't know what that means. I just hit reply...
M
Morris Dovey
Jeremy said:
Didn't he write the <something><something> C Boogie?
X
Xenos
Well, its been my experience that the best companies to work for are ones
that are willing to take the time to actually interview you. Ask you
questions; talk about past assignments, projects, etc. The ones that
instead choose to herd you into a room with a dozen other nameless
applicants will probably treat you as such: a nameless drone.
And I can tell you from experience that I loved working for the companies I
accepted offers from a lot more than friends and colleagues that accepted
offers from test-givers.
I never found regurgitate knowledge proof of anything. I knew several
skilled test-takers back in my college days that weren't very good at the
actual application of that knowledge.
Of course that's just my opinion formed from antidotal evidence.
DrX.
that are willing to take the time to actually interview you. Ask you
questions; talk about past assignments, projects, etc. The ones that
instead choose to herd you into a room with a dozen other nameless
applicants will probably treat you as such: a nameless drone.
And I can tell you from experience that I loved working for the companies I
accepted offers from a lot more than friends and colleagues that accepted
offers from test-givers.
I never found regurgitate knowledge proof of anything. I knew several
skilled test-takers back in my college days that weren't very good at the
actual application of that knowledge.
Of course that's just my opinion formed from antidotal evidence.
DrX.
A
Arthur J. O'Dwyer
Here's a modern classic of Usenet prose for you,
originally posted in comp.lang.c by Chris Torek.
---------
Right.
:So that's why you say not to top-post!
::It is helpful to say, in effect, "you said X; my answer is Y."
::If you edit the message to which you are replying to quote just
::the "X" part, then give your answer "Y", everything is pretty
::clear even if earlier versions are missing. Your own article
::will stand by itself. This convention has been developed over
::more than two decades, and it works well; longtime USENET readers
::seem to prefer it on average.
:::Can you put it all together for me now?
::::There are a few problems with this theory. USENET messages have
::::a tendency to get lost or mangled or even simply forgotten, so in
::::fact, one often *does* have to page down to read the entire quoted
::::text, then page back up to find the reply. Moreover, if the
::::quoted text is long -- as it often is -- it can be difficult even
::::to tell which part you MEANT to reply to.
:::::What's so bad about that? Especially since you can stop reading
:::::as soon as you have seen the part you already saw!
::::::Since top-posters only have to write their reply, then include
::::::the original message, they tend not to edit down the original
::::::message.
:::::::Well, I have an answer to that, but OK: what is the second?
::::::::It makes conversations come out upside down. The TV game
::::::::show "Jeopardy" is one of the few places the answer should
::::::::appear before the question.
:::::::::What is the first?
::::::::::I can give you two reasons.
:::::::::::Why is this bad?
::::::::::::This is the practice of writing your reply, then
::::::::::::including the original message below (often the whole
::::::::::::thing, instead of just the part you are replying to).
:::::::::::::What do you mean "top-post"?
:::::::::::::
lease do not "top-post".
I
Irrwahn Grausewitz
This is:
------------------------------------------------
Your reply is on top of the text you respond to.
Why is it called top-posting?
This is!
What's top-posting?
Answer...!
Question...?
I
Irrwahn Grausewitz
Morris Dovey said:
BTW: Does anyone know who wrote "C You Later, Alligator" ?