I have my doubts the folks criticizing it actually read the code. Even if they have, what's the point of shitting on someone's pet project? Note that none of them actually give a reason for why the think it's bad. I think the folks criticizing are simply being bullies.
I think the code is fine and the project serves a nice niche. I can never remember the syntax for sed either, so I might actually use this project. No such thing as bad press I guess :)
Yes, that was my exact experience with Hibernate. I spent two years working on apps that used Hibernate and I never felt like I really understood how it worked. ActiveRecord for the most part "Just Works" for me in comparison.
> "It's fine to disagree, but it's a pretty lame attack him based on a selected portion of his bio."
As opposed to attacking an entire blanket group of people based on their ability to answer personal questions in an interview?
tokenadult didn't start by calling people "losers".
It's lame when know-it-alls write blog posts about how their unscientific, unverified approach to some task ought to be adopted by everyone. It's even more lame when successful people ascribe their successes to such unscientific hoo-hah (even though we all have them), proceed to spoon feed them to everyone within eye-shot, and point at people and call them losers on arbitrary criteria.
The world is full of successful jerks - the jury is still out on whether your boss ever really had an effective hiring system.
Sure, we could replace winners and losers with some term like "A players" and "B players." But even judging past success has its flaws; I feel that society as a whole tends to put success, or "winning", on a pedestal. How many great minds have we benefited from who had significant flaws in their time, or went unrecognized?
People are probably a lot more complicated than we think. We try to sort them out into categories as best we can, but we should remember that our understanding of another person's value is limited at best. Calling out people as "losers" because they don't fit your purpose is immature.
Do you happen to know if the author went to college?
He seems to have this cute idea that you pay $120k to a institution of higher learning, then you dedicate all of your time to academics, then you emerge with a well-refined body of knowledge in your particular field. I thought this is how it worked too, before I attended a college.
Maybe his point is that you shouldn't be taken seriously if you pay $120k and spend 4 years doing something where you're not deeply intellectually invested, but it's hard to have the confidence at 17 to be the contrarian that doesn't attend college.
Yes. But then, we use a gamified version of a work-sample test, so I would know that despite the fact that the candidate doesn't really care about the difference between Python and Ruby, he can exploit blind SQL injection and reverse engineer a network protocol. Which is good, because the latter ability is predictive of success, and the former is predictive of lots of stupid unproductive arguments.
This would be a nitpicking debate except that it gets to the heart of what makes the interview strategy in this article so dumb. There are lots of great programmers --- maybe some of the best --- who don't care all that much about language design or what language they'll be working in. There are, more importantly, a WHOLE MESS of programmers who can DEFINITELY talk your ears off about what the best language is... and then fail fizbuzz.
It depends if I'm hiring him to program or repair cars. If someone left college with a CS degree and a realization that he never wanted to write a line code ever again and got an apprenticeship as a welder instead, I wouldn't hold it against him if 6 years later he'd forgotten most of what he knew about programming.
So this candidate partied his way through college and bluffed his way to a degree, what difference does that make if you're not hiring him to do anything related to his degree? I thought the prevailing notion here was that most of the stuff taught at college was largely pointless when compared to the hard-won knowledge gained in the trenches of the professional world.
I would rather hire a CS grad who couldn't answer the question, "What's your favorite programming language?" than someone who could. A decent CS grad wouldn't have a preference, there are different languages for different purposes depending on what you are trying to accomplish. There is no one language fits all language. I'd prefer a CS grad who has a vested interest and appreciation of multiple languages, wouldn't you? Why hire someone with a raging hard on for Java when you can hire someone with an appreciation for Java, Python and C++?
Ignoring that he has built a successful company (while needing to hire a ton of people to accomplish it) seems very selective to me.
Also saying that "Maybe he'll be a winner in the future, and I wish him well" makes me think he completely missed that, or perhaps has never heard of Bleacher Report. The intersection of tech people and sports people does not seem very large.
What's wrong with the metaphor? How would you have described the problem differently?
I thought it was a really good description of the situation Facebook is in. People have speculated for years about all of the different ways they could produce insane revenue/profits (the hot dog -> caviar machine), but their current revenue (the hot dogs) is very lackluster.
I think the issue is that metaphors work best when they are about real situations. The idea of a metaphor (usually) is to help a person understand one situation by mapping their knowledge of another, more familiar, situation to the first. No one is familiar with the problem of turning hot dogs into caviar, because no one is trying to do it. If anything, the actual problem is more familiar to those on HN than the metaphor.