An interview experience
-
:)) So you mean to say that in today's C# compiler, the code will compile? I actually tried compiling the code above (since you said) .. and I got this compilation error. "Error 1 Cannot convert type 'string' to 'int' " Any special comments?
tumbledDown2earth wrote:
Any special comments?
You missed the joke icon. :)
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
tumbledDown2earth wrote:
Any special comments?
You missed the joke icon. :)
"Real men drive manual transmission" - Rajesh.
-
tumbledDown2earth wrote:
Any special comments?
no, but just boxing
"Coming soon"
FROM MSDN: Boxing is the process of converting a value type to the type object or to any interface type implemented by this value type. When the CLR boxes a value type, it wraps the value inside a System.Object and stores it on the managed heap. Unboxing extracts the value type from the object. Boxing is implicit; unboxing is explicit. The concept of boxing and unboxing underlies the C# unified view of the type system, in which a value of any type can be treated as an object. --- "interface type implemented by this value type" ... I guess the only way to make this work is write an explicit implementation extension (not sure if it would be legal, without trying) ... But again .. if you say UnBoxing it would still be closer :) My core frustration though, is not being able to understand from what language/programming practice can such a thought originate...
-
FROM MSDN: Boxing is the process of converting a value type to the type object or to any interface type implemented by this value type. When the CLR boxes a value type, it wraps the value inside a System.Object and stores it on the managed heap. Unboxing extracts the value type from the object. Boxing is implicit; unboxing is explicit. The concept of boxing and unboxing underlies the C# unified view of the type system, in which a value of any type can be treated as an object. --- "interface type implemented by this value type" ... I guess the only way to make this work is write an explicit implementation extension (not sure if it would be legal, without trying) ... But again .. if you say UnBoxing it would still be closer :) My core frustration though, is not being able to understand from what language/programming practice can such a thought originate...
-
Oh .. I basically followed the type-tag ... But if it was a joke, then you wouldnt have interviewed :)
I dunno - it sounds like the interview was a joke...
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
So I met this guy during an interview today who called himself a DOT-NET developer He kept on arguing that following code is called "boxing" string s = "3"; int i = (int)s; I mean, forget boxing .. this code doesnt even compile. I contemplated showing him on a quick online browser but did not have such resources in hand ... He had a bunch of such questions (all of them equally unjustifiable) ... after which I was thankfully rejected ... Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
Maybe it was a test to see how you would respond to a superior or colleague upon being given incorrect technical spec and/or guidance!! ;)
tumbledDown2earth wrote:
Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
Well the really technically inept sociopathic ones usually get there by being persuasive. They are good at charming or bullying colleagues and superiors into accepting that they know what they are talking about.
-
tumbledDown2earth wrote:
But again .. if you say UnBoxing it would still be closer
yes of course UnBoxing is closer to Boxing, except that we have to UnBoxing :)
"Coming soon"
Is UnBoxing beating yourself up in a ring? Or competitive healthcare?
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
So I met this guy during an interview today who called himself a DOT-NET developer He kept on arguing that following code is called "boxing" string s = "3"; int i = (int)s; I mean, forget boxing .. this code doesnt even compile. I contemplated showing him on a quick online browser but did not have such resources in hand ... He had a bunch of such questions (all of them equally unjustifiable) ... after which I was thankfully rejected ... Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
-
Is UnBoxing beating yourself up in a ring? Or competitive healthcare?
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
OriginalGriff wrote:
Is UnBoxing beating yourself up in a ring? Or competitive healthcare?
Yes :laugh:
"Coming soon"
-
That is boxing. Doesn't it make you feel punch the guy?
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[^]
-
So I met this guy during an interview today who called himself a DOT-NET developer He kept on arguing that following code is called "boxing" string s = "3"; int i = (int)s; I mean, forget boxing .. this code doesnt even compile. I contemplated showing him on a quick online browser but did not have such resources in hand ... He had a bunch of such questions (all of them equally unjustifiable) ... after which I was thankfully rejected ... Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
tumbledDown2earth wrote:
Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
Because non-techies can't tell the good ones from the posers. That problem is not particular to CompTech, but seems to be especially prominent here.
-
That is boxing. Doesn't it make you feel punch the guy?
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[^]
Yeah ... I wanted to start the real boxing (the sports one)
-
So I met this guy during an interview today who called himself a DOT-NET developer He kept on arguing that following code is called "boxing" string s = "3"; int i = (int)s; I mean, forget boxing .. this code doesnt even compile. I contemplated showing him on a quick online browser but did not have such resources in hand ... He had a bunch of such questions (all of them equally unjustifiable) ... after which I was thankfully rejected ... Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
"Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky"... Does the C# compiler support a Ticky-tack directive? ;P
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932 -
"Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes made of ticky-tacky"... Does the C# compiler support a Ticky-tack directive? ;P
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932No, but there is an abstract TickyTacky class from which you can derive the Box objects. [edit]Typo: "Drive" for "Derive" - OriginalGriff[/edit]
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
-
So I met this guy during an interview today who called himself a DOT-NET developer He kept on arguing that following code is called "boxing" string s = "3"; int i = (int)s; I mean, forget boxing .. this code doesnt even compile. I contemplated showing him on a quick online browser but did not have such resources in hand ... He had a bunch of such questions (all of them equally unjustifiable) ... after which I was thankfully rejected ... Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
-
So I met this guy during an interview today who called himself a DOT-NET developer He kept on arguing that following code is called "boxing" string s = "3"; int i = (int)s; I mean, forget boxing .. this code doesnt even compile. I contemplated showing him on a quick online browser but did not have such resources in hand ... He had a bunch of such questions (all of them equally unjustifiable) ... after which I was thankfully rejected ... Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
-
So I met this guy during an interview today who called himself a DOT-NET developer He kept on arguing that following code is called "boxing" string s = "3"; int i = (int)s; I mean, forget boxing .. this code doesnt even compile. I contemplated showing him on a quick online browser but did not have such resources in hand ... He had a bunch of such questions (all of them equally unjustifiable) ... after which I was thankfully rejected ... Gawd I just dont understand how such people get into mainstream interviewing in super large MNCs.
