Interesting read from the POV of the staffing agency and hiring company. But why should I jump through those hoops when I don't even know if I'm interested in the job? I really think the hiring companies need to sell me on them before they ask me to spend an hour of my time.
I agree. I had an interview yesterday where they passed, and the reasoning was "You didn't seem interested in the job." And I sort of think that's hilarious, because nobody tried to sell me on the job. Nobody told me exactly what the job would entail. I never met the hiring manager, even though I was on-site for 5 hours. And clearly they weren't interested in me... It just seems weird that I have to be jizzing my pants to work for them, but they don't even have to try to sell me on the role.
And this goes doubly true for any company that reaches out to me first. Like, if I apply to your company, then yeah, you have an expectation of me being interested in the company. But if you reach out to me, then maybe you're the one who needs to sell yourself to me.
I don't really get that attitude by employers. Whenever I'm interviewing candidates, I really try to sell them on the role. I try to tell them what's awesome about it, why they should want to work here over literally anywhere else in the world, and why you WANT to sit next to us for the next six months and work with me and my team on projects. Part of my job as an interviewer is to not only gauge your ability and interest, but to convince you that we're the best place for you to be.
Or... do interviewers really think I selected their company is the only company I even considered talking to? We're engineers. We have options. You (the company) have to meet me at least halfway.
Incidentally, I've often wanted to ask my interviewers to solve a tech challenge. I don't want to join a company where the team is incompetent and I'm constantly cleaning up after them. Oddly, that's never a consideration that companies allow candidates... ;)
That works well except when you're in a language where you can't nest functions and need data from the outer scope. C is like that.
Rust really likes to bail out of functions when something goes wrong. That's what "try!()" does.
Allowing multiple exits from a loop is no longer controversial. Multiple entries into a loop are still considered undesirable.
From a proof of correctness standpoint, the topology requirement is that there be some single place within the loop through which control must pass. That's where the proof inductive step takes place, and where you prove loop termination by showing that some measure is decreasing. Restrictions stricter than that are more stylistic than formal.
Ah, you seem to be
talking about having the source code of function
X inside the source code of
function Y and, then, the names
known in function Y are also
known in function X unless
declared again within function
X. I LIKE that! That's what PL/I
has.
Once I got a phone interview from
Google. An early question was,
"What is your favorite programming
language?"
Sure, right away, PL/I! Opps, (from a movie) "way
wrong answer!". Apparently the
only right answer was C++. Gee,
I didn't want to lie. Besides, to me
saying C++ instead of PL/I should
cause me to lose a full letter grade!
So, PL/I has descendancy, static
and dynamic. The static version is
from the nesting in the static source code. The
dyanmic version is from functions,
subroutines, etc. that have been
called (are active) but have yet to
return.
Then with such descendancy and entry variables, can get
some interesting situations, design
patterns!
I did that once and avoided a
total mess in the IBM AI language
KnowledgeTool!
