How sophisticated is your code?
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
I'd respond by providing the many kinds of sophisticted code I developed. Something like, "I've written DLL's that would load and unload automatically, kinda like a whimsical Brittney Spears. I've also coded application routines that would determine what server the code was launched from and then ensured the database connection was to the same server, kinda like a robust Arnold Schwarzenagger. Is that sophisticated enough for you? :)
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
One of the reasons why interviews suck.:mad: I'd probably have to ask them for further elaboration before answering. Or ask what their motivation for the questions is.
Kevin
-
There is a utility out there that measures code complexity metrics for C++ applications. As for C#, how can a half-ass language built on a half-ass "technology" be very complex? Sarcasm Alert: The second sentence in the statement above is sarcasm[^]. Go ahead, look it up. Oh yeah, it's okay to smirk, grin, giggle, laugh, or even guffaw in response. No, really. It is okay. However, it is NOT okay to be offended, and if you are, maybe you should take up residence in a cave somewhere and avoid any further human interaction.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
I think I'd have to answer. "My code, oh that's all simple, it's in C++. Even stupid computers can understand it. My solution architectures on the other hand are very sophisticated. Like the time I made IIS 3 on NT4 into a scalable Web application platform, something Bill Gates never managed :-D"
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
The proper reply is, "My code enjoys a night at the opera, scotch and caviar. Top that bitch."
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil Peart -
:laugh::laugh::laugh: I love the disclaimer at the bottom of your post.....very nice.
An American football fan - Go Seahawks! Lil Turtle
You almost *have* to include such a disclaimer here if you don't want some overly sensitive pillow biter to claim your post is abuse, and even then, there's no guarantee that it will have the desired affect. I find that the Indian contingent is generally the hardest to deal with. Of course, I'd be pissed off all the time too if I lived in a mud hut and got paid $0.35 per hour as a customer service rep listening to Americans that didn't want to talk to an Indian who calls himself "Larry". Disclaimer: The second paragraph in the statement above is part of the continuing sarcasm aimed at a specific country, and should not be misconstrued as "abuse" by the overly sensitive pillow biters. BTW, Canada was actually next on my hit list, but I never turn down an opportunity to drag outsourcing through the mud of absurdity.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
The proper reply is, "My code enjoys a night at the opera, scotch and caviar. Top that bitch."
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil PeartThen it's bordering on foppish. I bet it lifts its pinky when it drinks tea. I try to keep my code between precocious and incorrigible.
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
It drinks white wine with fish, red with beef, and doesn't eat pork at all.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
The proper reply is, "My code enjoys a night at the opera, scotch and caviar. Top that bitch."
BW
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
-- Neil PeartI like your response better than mine.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How sophisticated is your code
My answer would be: My code is generally readable, so simple in conceptual application, but sophisticated in invention. Multiple times has industry scrambled to find out how I did something. The most recent of which: Boeing introduced a request for a 5 million dollar contract to do an alternative to augmented reality in field operations since "the technology was not existant for a true out-of-lab software solution..." the same week we made the announcement at a Virginia presentation that we had taken augmented reality out of the lab and into the field and not as a prototype, but as a full operational and tested system. Sophistication in "new" designs: sophistication in creative solutions, sophistication in invention and R&D, but simple in overall design and application such that it is easy to understand how I did it once someone gets the code.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How sophisticated is your code
My answer would be: My code is generally readable, so simple in conceptual application, but sophisticated in invention. Multiple times has industry scrambled to find out how I did something. The most recent of which: Boeing introduced a request for a 5 million dollar contract to do an alternative to augmented reality in field operations since "the technology was not existant for a true out-of-lab software solution..." the same week we made the announcement at a Virginia presentation that we had taken augmented reality out of the lab and into the field and not as a prototype, but as a full operational and tested system. Sophistication in "new" designs: sophistication in creative solutions, sophistication in invention and R&D, but simple in overall design and application such that it is easy to understand how I did it once someone gets the code.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
I was on an interview yesterday and this was one of the questions I was asked by the Asst VP of IT. :wtf: How do you answer? Compared to what? or Very sophisticated, probably more than your people would understand. I was also asked by a project manager how I have used ASP.NET to code websites. Well, I haven't. ASP.NET is a technology, I have used the language C# to implement this technology.
only two letters away from being an asset
if my code was a person, it would be "Bond, James Bond"... :cool: Steve
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Man, you need to get out of the SB more. ;P Honestly, the few times I've seen you post something in the Lounge, it's something very good. :) I don't visit the SB these days anyway...
Cheers, Vıkram.
After all is said and done, much is said and little is done.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone.
At my company I was asked to rewrite my ASP.Net application in VB, due to the fact that no-one else can understand C#.:confused: I thought the reason they employed me was to teach them how to use more "advanced" technology.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
one of my clients told me that they were rewriting significant portions of the application because it needed to be dumbed down so inhouse people could understand it.
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone. The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable. But that usually just produces blank stares. To most people, a line of code is a line of code and nothing else, its relationship to all the other lines of code is utterly meaningless. Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Argh! So much text! It's too complex for me to read! ;P But seriously, I couldn't express myself better than you did.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem, as I always try to explain, is that the architecture of the code should always be complex enough to properly manage the inherent complexity of the application over its lifetime. Otherwise, poorly architected code, regardless of how simple it might seem initially, will invariably increase in complexity over time as changes are made and bugs fixed until it is finally completely unmanageable.
I'm going to add an entry in my blog, quoting you. That's got to be the best way of stating the problem that I've ever come across. Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
I'm going to add an entry in my blog, quoting you.
For all the good it will do. I am convinced that there will always be a controlling faction of the commercial software industry which simply refuses to allow software to be developed by grownups - it would just be such an expensive waste of time and all. -- modified at 7:15 Monday 11th June, 2007
-
if my code was a person, it would be "Bond, James Bond"... :cool: Steve
The whole 'license to kill' thing is a bit of a problem, however.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Mark Nischalke wrote:
How sophisticated is your code
My answer would be: My code is generally readable, so simple in conceptual application, but sophisticated in invention. Multiple times has industry scrambled to find out how I did something. The most recent of which: Boeing introduced a request for a 5 million dollar contract to do an alternative to augmented reality in field operations since "the technology was not existant for a true out-of-lab software solution..." the same week we made the announcement at a Virginia presentation that we had taken augmented reality out of the lab and into the field and not as a prototype, but as a full operational and tested system. Sophistication in "new" designs: sophistication in creative solutions, sophistication in invention and R&D, but simple in overall design and application such that it is easy to understand how I did it once someone gets the code.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've found that any attempt to employ programming methods beyond CS101 is a waste of time because it will always be considered "too complex" by someone.
At my company I was asked to rewrite my ASP.Net application in VB, due to the fact that no-one else can understand C#.:confused: I thought the reason they employed me was to teach them how to use more "advanced" technology.
