• (cs) in reply to Crunchy
    Crunchy:
    My favorite comment in an interview (I was the candidate):

    (It's about 15 minutes into the interview at this point)
    Interviewer: So, when I get stressed out I just go out to my car and smoke a joint.  Ya know!
    Me: Umm.....




    Was the interviewer's initials S.B. ?

    Seriously, I worked for a brief time for a guy who was pot-obsessed.
  • (cs) in reply to UncleMidriff

    UncleMidriff:
    To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++) necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a tie?  Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn clothing that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's more of an issue of comfort.  a comfortable programmer is more productive, simply because being uncomfortable is a form of distraction.</FONT>

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>i find dress codes silly in this field because a developer does not often interact with a customer.  it's an abstraction of duty, and i think the sales people should wear their suits when they go out to represent the company to be taken seriously.  why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?  the compiler doesn't care if you code naked!</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:

    UncleMidriff:
    To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++) necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a tie?  Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn clothing that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">it's more of an issue of comfort.  a comfortable programmer is more productive, simply because being uncomfortable is a form of distraction.</font>

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">i find dress codes silly in this field because a developer does not often interact with a customer.  it's an abstraction of duty, and i think the sales people should wear their suits when they go out to represent the company to be taken seriously.  why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?  the compiler doesn't care if you code naked!</font>



    But, apparently, my coworkers do, unfortunately...;)

    I agree with you that it's nice to be more comfortable, and that comfortable people probably work more efficiently.  But as for myself I have never found dressing up to be that uncomfortable.

    And I certainly agree that attire isn't really all that important, especially for programmers who never see the light of day much less a customer.  But that's just it; attire is unimportant to me.  If my employers requires me to wear a tie, I'll wear a tie, even though I might agree with somoeone who says it's silly.  If the employer wants me to wear a t-shirt and jeans, I'll wear a t-shirt and jeans.  If the employer wants me to wear a tutu, I'll wear a tu...ok, maybe not.
  • cowardly dragon (unregistered) in reply to Razzie

    Agreed.

    I actually think the candidate got the better end of the deal in "Sit Down" - he didn't get hired by an obviously egomaniacal, moody, unpredictable CTO/President/Sysadmin boss. And the toady factor of the other dude is pretty glaring. If you want to hire a talented lead programmer, they will get excited about what they design and what to show it. But I think this guy just wants yes-men lapdogs.

  • (cs) in reply to UncleMidriff
    UncleMidriff:
    I really don't understand the strong aversion most people seem to have to wearing a uniform.  When working for a fast-food joint, you're going to have to wear something resembling a clown suit.  If you work for UPS, you wear brown.  That's just how it is.  At least at most jobs in which programmers are interested the "uniform" is wearable in other settings.


    It is uncomfortable for me.  See below.

    To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++) necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a tie?  Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn clothing that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"

    Well, I have a large neck.  I would have to buy tailored shirts in order to wear a tie.  Since I am heat-sensitive, the last thing that I want to wear is something that holds heat in, which a tie does.  I could not sensibly wear a tie elsewhere.  Besdies, the silly thing flips onto the listings.

    I wear sandals because of the way my feet are built.

    I dress the way I do for health reasons.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko

  • Mikey (unregistered) in reply to Scaredy Cat
    Anonymous:

    I would be a bannana tree...for obvious reasons.

     

    @Scaredy Cat...you're sick and need to seek professional help.

     

    But seriously, I thought about that animal/tree question and it's very disturbing.

     

    You can take any animal or tree and it will inevitably end up being a sick/perverted/psychotic response. Think about a horse, sheep, or oyster.

     

    And if it's not perverted and disgusting, it has a negative connotation. Think about a turtle, ape, or venus fly trap.

     

    Either way, you look bad.

     

    I think the question is stupid.

  • (cs) in reply to anon
    Anonymous:

    Also your arguement can easily be turned around;  a person that stayed in one place for 5 years is lacking motivation, not ambitious, not a risk taker, etc., therefore is an idiot.



    Gee, Thanks.

    I'm an idiot simply because I'd rather be loyal to the company I work for, rather than bounce from job to job, leaving past employers in the lurch. I'd much rather hire someone who has worked several years for one company, than worked 3 or more jobs in a 5 year time span, just simply because I don't want to waste time and resources interviewing new candidates when they flit to their next job.


  • cowardly dragon (unregistered) in reply to CPound

    Well, we now know about CPound:

    1. his company is actively outsourcing
    2. his company loves to wear suits and judge talent on the basis of suits
    3. he loves to use annoying boldings
    4. his insecurity is practically stamped in red over his postings.
    5. is obsessed with the facade of professionalism over the stink of competency and talent

    If this were the 90s, I would guarantee he worked at a big-six consulting firm. Still a pretty good chance he does.

    Dude, if you're just doing Seibel installs or SAP, and you just need monkeys to write awful code and lots of 10-inch-thick books of pointlessly printed requirements, you don't need and won't get anyone of talent. You're just installing package software.

    If you're doing serious software development, you need geniuses and talent. Geniuses are a little quirky.
  • (cs) in reply to cowardly dragon

    Anonymous:
    Well, we now know about CPound:
    1) his company is actively outsourcing
    2) his company loves to wear suits and judge talent on the basis of suits
    3) he loves to use annoying boldings
    4) his insecurity is practically stamped in red over his postings.
    5) is obsessed with the facade of professionalism over the stink of competency and talent

    1. Not true.
    2. Er...true.
    3. True.
    4. Sad, but true.
    5. Very true!
  • (cs) in reply to anon
    Anonymous:
    Not Registered:

    All of the people mention in this WTF have one thing in common, they are idiots.  Each one of them

    1. Are unemployed because they are an idiot, or
    2. They are trying to get a new job before the boss fires them at a current job.

    A good indication of a persons idiot factor is the number of jobs they have had over the past 5 years. (exclude consultants from this test)  If they have had more than 3+ jobs in 5 years, phone screen them. If they can't provide acceptable* reasons for each of the jumps move on.

    (*Acceptable varies with Corporate Culture of the hiring firm)

    Having 3+ jobs in 5 years is indicative of nothing. People get laid off, relocate, get sick, injured, short term dissability, divorce their boss' daughter, whatever. Not all the answers might be acceptable to you, but it doesn't mean that a person with 3+ jobs in 5 years is not a qualified candidate, it definitely doesn’t mean an idiot.

    Also your arguement can easily be turned around;  a person that stayed in one place for 5 years is lacking motivation, not ambitious, not a risk taker, etc., therefore is an idiot.

     

    Did you not read the asterix?  A Wallstreet Financial company and a start up in Seatle would have a different set of acceptable reason. 

    Eveyone of the items you mentioned is a valid reason for changing positions.  I also would consider acceptable: missionary trips, caring for a relative, long commute, can't handle the travel anymore, family tragedy, old technology and even backpacking europe because they needed a break.  The list goes on...

    But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.  It should be obvious these items are warning signs:

    1. "3 bosses that hated me"... are indicators that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or  they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)
    2. No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.
    3. Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.
    4. Unable to offer a 2 week notice?  Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.

    Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...  my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.  But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:

    The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)

    The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment

    The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.

    The person feels that it is important to minimize the disruption of  leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge. 

    I would say that person with these traits is someone who should be carefully examined.

  • (cs) in reply to CPound
    CPound:


    4. Sad, but true.



    Can't be. Someone insecure as that wouldn't reply true to 4 out of 5 things.  :)
  • (cs) in reply to Not Registered

    Not Registered:

    But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.  It should be obvious these items are warning signs:

    1. "3 bosses that hated me"... are indicators that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or  they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)
    2. No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.
    3. Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.
    4. Unable to offer a 2 week notice?  Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.

    Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...  my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.  But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:

    The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)

    The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment

    The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.

    The person feels that it is important to minimize the disruption of  leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge. 

    I would say that person with these traits is someone who should be carefully examined.

    #4 is worded incorrectly, and I would pull that from list... (some bosses are A-holes and 2 more weeks may not be worth it...)

  • (cs) in reply to UncleMidriff

    UncleMidriff:
    I really don't understand the strong aversion most people seem to have to wearing a uniform.  When working for a fast-food joint, you're going to have to wear something resembling a clown suit.  If you work for UPS, you wear brown.  That's just how it is.  At least at most jobs in which programmers are interested the "uniform" is wearable in other settings.

    Agreed, however I don't work at a fast-food joint (and never have). I don't work for UPS. I'm not doing a job where I interact with the public or clients or any other blamed thing. I'm a programmer. I sit behind a keyboard for 8 hours a day. Expecting me to get decked out to sit in a chair for 8 hours is unreasonable.

    My current employer requires slacks and a collared shirt. Fine. I can deal with that. I'd prefer jeans, but hey, BFD.

    UncleMidriff:
    To those who refuse to dress up: are y'all's (double contraction++) necks really so sensitive that it pains you unbearably to wear a tie?  Are your identities really so tied to your goddamn clothing that to dress up because you're required to do so by your employer constitutes "selling out?"

    It's not about "selling out". It's about respect. I can't work for somebody that I don't respect and who doesn't respect me. If somebody sets insane guidelines for dress code and such, then they're not respecting my abilities since they think I'm incapable of dressing myself, and I've lost respect for them for setting such insane policies. In either case, I cannot work for them.

  • Eric the .5n (unregistered)

    "While we were waiting, there was no idle chit-chat or talk wih the candidate. He was just sitting there with this really goofy look on his face. I remember thinking to myself that he was way too relaxed. After all, this was a senior programming position he was interviewing for. This was not just another random interview."

    I read this, and I wonder - was the Beavis and Butthead guy just stoned?

  • (cs) in reply to Otto
    Otto:
    It's not about "selling out". It's about respect. I can't work for somebody that I don't respect and who doesn't respect me. If somebody sets insane guidelines for dress code and such, then they're not respecting my abilities since they think I'm incapable of dressing myself, and I've lost respect for them for setting such insane policies. In either case, I cannot work for them.


    But wasn't this discussion about interview attire - not day to day working attire?
  • cowardly dragon (unregistered) in reply to CPound

    Curse your neo-90s psycho-introspection defense field. It has rendered my attacks benign.

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Not Registered
    Not Registered:

     

    Did you not read the asterix?  A Wallstreet Financial company and a start up in Seatle would have a different set of acceptable reason. 

    Eveyone of the items you mentioned is a valid reason for changing positions.  I also would consider acceptable: missionary trips, caring for a relative, long commute, can't handle the travel anymore, family tragedy, old technology and even backpacking europe because they needed a break.  The list goes on...

    But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.  It should be obvious these items are warning signs:

    1. "3 bosses that hated me"... are indicators that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or  they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)
    2. No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.
    3. Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.
    4. Unable to offer a 2 week notice?  Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.

    Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...  my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.  But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:

    The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)

    The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment

    The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.

    The person feels that it is important to minimize the disruption of  leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge. 

    I would say that person with these traits is someone who should be carefully examined.

    So, it’s just a matter of having inventing culturally acceptable excuses reasons?

  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon

    Richard Nixon:
    But wasn't this discussion about interview attire - not day to day working attire?

    Like I said in the first place, I'll dress up for an interview, but if everybody else I see is dressed up too, I won't be working there. :)

     

  • (cs) in reply to Scaredy Cat
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:

    “What kind of tree/animal would you be?”

     

    I would be a bannana tree...for obvious reasons.



    That's just wrong!

    http://botany.cs.tamu.edu/FLORA/pic1/nanners.jpg


  • (cs) in reply to Mikey
    You can take any animal or tree and it will inevitably end up being a sick/perverted/psychotic response. Think about a horse, sheep, or oyster.
    And if it's not perverted and disgusting, it has a negative connotation. Think about a turtle, ape, or venus fly trap.

    I thought of an answer to this one: Cockroach. Think about it. Cockroaches can eat anything and survive nuclear fallout. If you and I are cockroaches, well, all we have to do is trick the humans into annihilating each other with nuclear weapons and we have the whole (previously) civilized world to ourselves.

    Maybe that sort of response was the point of the test. Oops.[^o)]

  • (cs) in reply to Gene Wirchenko

    Gene Wirchenko:
    I dress the way I do for health reasons.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>while we're on the topic of silly employee mandates, why do we as a society continue to work in the [8-9]-[5-6]?  although some programming jobs offer flexible hours (with the obvious common time set aside for team interaction), there's still too many places of employment that work in this schedule.  and it's completely retarded.</FONT>

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>why can't i meet with a lawyer or a doctor for an appointment at 9 pm?  why can't i get non-trivial service (> 2hrs) on my car past 5 pm?  we'd all have less traffic problems, too.  and you can't go to court, DMVs, and other civil things any other time except right in the middle of your work day.  it's really stupid.</FONT>

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>great programming work knows not the clock.  the status quo of society's work hours is anathema to those of us with sleep disorders.  i feel left out from this great joy people find in getting stuck in traffic, having to miss work because of appointments that can't be scheduled at any other time, and having to buy groceries and other essentials when everybody else is buying them.</FONT>

  • ftp (unregistered) in reply to emptyset

    Good stuff.  :)

    I'd run away from a job where the president is showing off non-crunch mandatory weekend overtime as well.  It's one thing to put in extra hours to get the project done, and it's another when working unpaid evenings and weekends isn't considered extra hours.

    I've never had a problem asking the hiring manager (or whichever PR person first contacts me) what appropriate interview attire is.  I've been told quite a few times not to show up in a tie, which is always a relief because it makes me more nervous.

  • (cs)

    Getting back to the 60-70 hour work week... the way I see it is that lawyers and doctors generally work that many hours and I sure as hell am not making as much as they are.  So until I'm pulling down more than $200K, I'll stick to my current hours.

    When I started this job, the big boss-man indicated that this "isn't a 9 to 5 job".  Regrettably, I didn't ask him to clarify what he meant by that.  When I interview people and mention that, I mean that I'm not looking for someone who's going to show up 9 and then drop everything they're doing at five on the dot and head out for the day.  What he meant is that the average person is working well over 10 hours a day and then fixing all the broken stuff in the middle of the night.

    I work about 9 hours a day (usually more) and usually don't spend more than 15 minutes on lunch.  Aside from reading this forum, I'm pretty focused on my job too.  So that's a good 45 hour work week.  I'm comfortable with that in terms of the balance between my life and work.  I know that come review time, that probably won't be good enough for this company, but that's all I'm willing to give based on my current salary and commitments outside of work (i.e. my wife).

    The interesting thing to note is why everyone is working so many hours each week.  Are we being productive and creating all kinds of cool software?  NO!  We're barely keeping our heads above the water fixing problems with existing applications.  I've found this in every job I've worked.  The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.  The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.

  • Donnie (unregistered) in reply to Schroeder

    Regarding the "what animal would you be?" question...

    I would be an angry cat, with sharp claws to scratch the interviewer's face.

  • (cs) in reply to Otto
    Otto:

    Richard Nixon:
    But wasn't this discussion about interview attire - not day to day working attire?

    Like I said in the first place, I'll dress up for an interview, but if everybody else I see is dressed up too, I won't be working there. :)

     



    Yes, it's unfortunate that "emptyset" replied to someone who was discussing attire for an interview with a comment about attire for day-to-day work, as if that was refuting the statement.
  • (cs) in reply to Schroeder

    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.  The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.  bleh.  it is not the life for me.</FONT>

  • Sam (unregistered) in reply to Richard Nixon

    RE: What animal would you be?

    I would throw the interviewer completely off by saying I would be a food.

    I would say I would be a taco, because they come in both soft and crunchy varieties.

  • (cs) in reply to anon
    Anonymous:
    Not Registered:

     

    Did you not read the asterix?  A Wallstreet Financial company and a start up in Seatle would have a different set of acceptable reason. 

    Eveyone of the items you mentioned is a valid reason for changing positions.  I also would consider acceptable: missionary trips, caring for a relative, long commute, can't handle the travel anymore, family tragedy, old technology and even backpacking europe because they needed a break.  The list goes on...

    But having 3 bosses that "hated me", no explaination, or switching jobs 3 times for better pay are warning flags.  It should be obvious these items are warning signs:

    1. "3 bosses that hated me"... are indicators that the person is a bad judge of character when interviewing, or  they have a problem getting along with people. (You need to get solid references on this guy)
    2. No explaination... I can't see how this isn't a warning flag.. The guy is an IDIOT if he can't provide (or makeup) valid reasons for a jump.
    3. Switching jobs every 8 to 12 months for salary increases... why would you expect that the person would not quit as soon as they get a better offer.
    4. Unable to offer a 2 week notice?  Who wants a person that will walk out without a transition of duties/knowlegde. The fact is that most companies don't make you stay the 2 weeks.

    Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur...  my comments merely show warning signs for job hopping.  But if you want a true comparision it would be the following:

    The person has not experienced any adversity or pressing reason to leave their current position. (AKA loyalty)

    The person has a valid reason for seeking new employment

    The person feels that they have been fairly compensated by their company.

    The person feels that it is important to minimize the disruption of  leaving by providing the customary 2 weeks. OR the person is willing to help in the transition so they do not burn a bridge. 

    I would say that person with these traits is someone who should be carefully examined.

    So, it’s just a matter of having inventing culturally acceptable excuses reasons?

    You're not a job hopper if you have legitimate reasons... but if your are a job hopper, and you don't have enough common sense to cover up the hopping, then you are the king of idiots...  In either case, a good interview will uncover the clowns.

  • David P. Murphy (unregistered) in reply to Otto
    Otto:

    If somebody sets insane guidelines for dress code and such, then they're not respecting my abilities since they think I'm incapable of dressing myself, and I've lost respect for them for setting such insane policies.



    I interviewed at AG Software in Reston, VA, USA a few years ago.
    Everything went smoothly except at the very end; I was wearing a polo shirt
    and khaki slacks, and asked about a dress code.  The interviewer replied
    that black denim jeans were acceptable, but blue were not.  He had no
    explanation for this policy, which was one of the reasons I declined the offer.
    Not because I only owned blue jeans, but because it made no sense.

    I still can't imagine why they had that rule.

    ok
    dpm
  • (cs) in reply to Not Registered

    My favorite interview was some guy who had indicated on his resume that he did consulting work.  He was kind of evasive about it when I asked for detail during the interview.  I was finally able to wear him down and got him to give me a straight answer...  Turns out that he had written some tiny VB app for his brother.  And it wasn't even an application that was used in a professional manner.  I think it kept track of his CD collection or something like that.  Consulting.  Yep.

    I love interviewing people and breaking them down to quivering masses of jello.  Don't get me wrong, I'm actually a very nice guy and I try to make people feel at ease during an interview.  But there's only one type of person I hate more than someone who lies on his resume, and that's someone who can't even lie well on his resume.  If you're going to claim you did consulting work, it had better be real.

  • jrock (unregistered)

    what about the other way around.  i interviewed for a position and the manager asked me some yada yada questions and then i was inetreviewed by the "technical expert".  this lady had rotting brown teeth.  no frickin lie.  some were missing in the front and you could visibly see her gums and remaining teeth rotting.  i thought i was going to puke and i could hardly concentrate on the interview.  everytime she opened her mouth i looked away.  it is one of the most horrific things i've ever seen.

    needless to say, i concluded the interview as quickly as possible and never cam back.  eeek!

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:

    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.  The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.  bleh.  it is not the life for me.</FONT>

    You should be a contractor, then.  All you'll do is write code that is unmaintainable and move on.  Having never had to maintain this crap code, you will never know how difficult it is to support and think you are god's gift to programming.  What a life!

  • (cs) in reply to dubwai
    dubwai:
    emptyset:

    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.  The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.  bleh.  it is not the life for me.</font>

    You should be a contractor, then.  All you'll do is write code that is unmaintainable and move on.  Having never had to maintain this crap code, you will never know how difficult it is to support and think you are god's gift to programming.  What a life!



    Man, you just sold me on that. Are there any downfalls to being a contractor besides that hollow feeling inside and a pervasive stench of shame?
  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon
    Richard Nixon:
    dubwai:
    emptyset:

    Schroeder:
    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.  The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>yeah, maintaining old code is annoying.  bleh.  it is not the life for me.</FONT>

    You should be a contractor, then.  All you'll do is write code that is unmaintainable and move on.  Having never had to maintain this crap code, you will never know how difficult it is to support and think you are god's gift to programming.  What a life!



    Man, you just sold me on that. Are there any downfalls to being a contractor besides that hollow feeling inside and a pervasive stench of shame?

    What hollow feeling?  What shame?  They leave with a warm glow thinking they've just provided a great value.

    A contractor was just showing us through some code they had written and I had been noticing that they had repetative explicit handling for errors all over the place in the code that went to a single error handling mechanism.  Think it was possible that there was a good reason for this (yeah, right!) I asked what value this had over letting all the the errors just drop to the error handler using exception handling.  The contractor said, 'well we don't care about errors that come from the debugging.' To this I replied, "but if we have an error in debugging, it's going to be a [basically silent] unhandled error that kills the transaction [not good]."  He said, 'yes'.

    Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.  So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:
    <font face="Courier New" size="2">
    why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?  the compiler doesn't care if you code naked!</font>

    Unless the development team is hidden away in a seperate building, there is a good chance they will actually encounter clients in the canteen, the lift etc. For that reason, a company that cares about looks will make sure that all of its people wear suits, even if it's "just in case".

    Anonymous:

    Dude, if you're just doing Seibel installs or SAP, and you just need monkeys to write awful code and lots of 10-inch-thick books of pointlessly printed requirements, you don't need and won't get anyone of talent. You're just installing package software.



    You probably have never seen SAP "customizing". That's like writing customized software, but with myriads of constraints, in a "language" that makes COBOL look sane. It takes a lot of skill and experience to do it right, and a lot of self-contempt to do it at all. No wonder those people get paid that much.

    Anonymous:

    The interviewer replied that black denim jeans were acceptable, but blue were not.  He had no

    explanation for this policy, which was one of the reasons I declined the offer.

    Not because I only owned blue jeans, but because it made no sense.


    I still can't imagine why they had that rule.

    Well, when blue jeans are worn out, they look shabby, but technically, they are still blue. Black denim, on the other side, turns gray when it wears off, so it's technically no longer black and as such no longer acceptable by the policy. Therefore such a policy reliefs you from drawing an arbitrary distinction between good blue jeans and bad blue jeans.
  • (cs) in reply to dubwai

    dubwai:
    Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.  So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that was hilarious.  seriously though, this all just comes back to the inescapable conclusion that people are just getting paid to be happy consumers (and of course, i'm speaking of america, here).  see, what's not important is that the contractor actually produces anything of value - it's that he carries a $15,000+ debt on his credit cards through an insatiable lust for shiny metal things.  that's the reality of our brave new world: employers paying their so-called 'workers' to buy stupid shit.  things like drug prescriptions are society's subsidy to drug manufacturers, in return for a placebo (or maybe it induces love of shiny things?).  it's all just smoke and mirrors: nascar, the ipod, television, gasoline, and slapping magnets onto the side of an SUV.  why does bush want to subsidize the rich and corporations?  because without their constant flow of money to the workers, who will be buying stupid shit?</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to Schroeder
    Schroeder:

    The guys who were working 40-50 hours were the ones who had their act together and were getting things done effectively.  The guys who were working 50+ hours were the one with poorly managed projects who were reacting to problems rather than planning solutions.

    Well managed projects don't require heroic efforts...

  • (cs) in reply to ammoQ

    ammoQ:
    emptyset:
    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
    why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?  the compiler doesn't care if you code naked!</FONT>

    Unless the development team is hidden away in a seperate building, there is a good chance they will actually encounter clients in the canteen, the lift etc. For that reason, a company that cares about looks will make sure that all of its people wear suits, even if it's "just in case".

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that's absolutely ridiculous.  by that same logic, i should also be wearing diapers all the time in case i decide to crap on a client.  or i should carry around a happy meal to provide clients with spontaneous hamburgers and a free toy!</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to Richard Nixon

    Richard Nixon:

    Yes, it's unfortunate that "emptyset" replied to someone who was discussing attire for an interview with a comment about attire for day-to-day work, as if that was refuting the statement.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>it's also unfortunate "Richard Nixon" continously poisons the threads with his libertarian agenda.</FONT>

  • (cs) in reply to Satanicpuppy

    Satanicpuppy:
    My problem with tests is syntax. If you start asking me syntax questions on a paper test, then I'll walk out. You know, I don't always keep the exact number of arguments that method can take in my head. It says a lot about an employer if they expect you to write syntactically correct code on a piece of paper.

    As me theory, logic, problem solving, and pseudo-code all you want. But if you're gonna run it through a compiler later, to hell with you.

    The test I administer for our new contractors does contain some syntax questions, but that's just part of it. Most of them are not, but what I'm looking for is the overall competence in the answers. If they get all the syntax questions right, and all the technical general knowledge questions right, and expand on their long answers, and annotate their code, I know we're on to a good one. If I spot an syntax problem but it's a minor one, it doesn't engender a bad mark. But if there are lots of them, I smell a rat.

    My rule of thumb for employing anyone: can they do the job? would I like to have a drink with them? If I can say "yes" to both, they're hired.

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:

    <font face="Courier New" size="2">that's absolutely ridiculous.  by that same logic, i should also be wearing diapers all the time in case i decide to crap on a client.  or i should carry around a happy meal to provide clients with spontaneous hamburgers and a free toy!</font>



    Well, some companies have a strict dresscode because they have the kind of customers (banks, telcos etc.) who believe that only people in suit&tie are reputable. Those companies don't want their clients to accidentaly meet long-heired geeks in jeans and t-shirts within the company building, even if they are the most clevers coders in town. (which would not matter anyway, because of the company's bureaucratic QA practices, genuises are hardly more productive than average programmers - both spend 95% of their time completing QA forms)  If you can't live with such a dresscode, it's the wrong place for you to work.
  • (cs) in reply to emptyset

    "...What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this [forum] is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:

    dubwai:
    Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.  So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that was hilarious.  seriously though, this all just comes back to the inescapable conclusion that people are just getting paid to be happy consumers (and of course, i'm speaking of america, here).  see, what's not important is that the contractor actually produces anything of value - it's that he carries a $15,000+ debt on his credit cards through an insatiable lust for shiny metal things.  that's the reality of our brave new world: employers paying their so-called 'workers' to buy stupid shit.  things like drug prescriptions are society's subsidy to drug manufacturers, in return for a placebo (or maybe it induces love of shiny things?).  it's all just smoke and mirrors: nascar, the ipod, television, gasoline, and slapping magnets onto the side of an SUV.  why does bush want to subsidize the rich and corporations?  because without their constant flow of money to the workers, who will be buying stupid shit?</FONT>

    Damnit, my previous post was supposed to have been in response to this.

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:

    dubwai:
    Of course, as a contractor, he cannot admit this is a problem because his boss (his real boss at the contracting firm) would be really pissed.  So they just gloss over it like it's no big deal.

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that was hilarious.  seriously though, this all just comes back to the inescapable conclusion that people are just getting paid to be happy consumers (and of course, i'm speaking of america, here).  see, what's not important is that the contractor actually produces anything of value - it's that he carries a $15,000+ debt on his credit cards through an insatiable lust for shiny metal things.  that's the reality of our brave new world: employers paying their so-called 'workers' to buy stupid shit.  things like drug prescriptions are society's subsidy to drug manufacturers, in return for a placebo (or maybe it induces love of shiny things?).  it's all just smoke and mirrors: nascar, the ipod, television, gasoline, and slapping magnets onto the side of an SUV.  why does bush want to subsidize the rich and corporations?  because without their constant flow of money to the workers, who will be buying stupid shit?</FONT>

    Dude, you need to lay off the bong.  Seriously, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  Why would the Illuminati want a bunch of people wasting time so they can buy a bunch of stuff?  Why no just cut checks to people?  What's the point of the pretend work?

  • (cs) in reply to ammoQ

    ammoQ:
    (which would not matter anyway, because of the company's bureaucratic QA practices, genuises are hardly more productive than average programmers - both spend 95% of their time completing QA forms)

    Can you see into my brain?

  • (cs) in reply to emptyset
    emptyset:

    ammoQ:
    emptyset:
    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>
    why should a programmer have to do this when their concerns are making a compiler/the design/the program happy?  the compiler doesn't care if you code naked!</FONT>

    Unless the development team is hidden away in a seperate building, there is a good chance they will actually encounter clients in the canteen, the lift etc. For that reason, a company that cares about looks will make sure that all of its people wear suits, even if it's "just in case".

    <FONT face="Courier New" size=2>that's absolutely ridiculous.  by that same logic, i should also be wearing diapers all the time in case i decide to crap on a client.  or i should carry around a happy meal to provide clients with spontaneous hamburgers and a free toy!</FONT>

    Actually it's a perfectly valid argument.  Your straw men are pretty ridiculous, though.  If you are going to use a straw man argument, you should at least try to disguise it as such.  Your response it analogous to:

    [A] People should put their babies in carseats, even when they are going on very short trips.

    [B]That's ridiculous!  Why not strap them into a parachute in case you drive off a cliff?  Why not bring baby scuba gear in case you drive into a river?

  • StoneCypher (unregistered) in reply to CPound

    I don't think I'm a bigot or a stuffed shirt.

    Yeah, bigots never do.  You're sitting there making ridiculous non-germane value judgements about a company based on comfortable chairs and personal beliefs about a workplace's ergonomics (whether they use words you can't spell like effervescent isn't important.)

    By the way, quit with the bolding every word you want people to think is important.  It just makes you look stupid.

  • StoneCypher (unregistered) in reply to Richard Nixon

    That's patently stupid. Someone shows up showing the proper amount of respect to show that they are taking the job seriously - and the company excuses them?

    I call you a liar "John." Grab a piece of fat and slide off.

    You shouldn't.  I've contracted to companies exactly that stupid.  There are people out there who found small companies, then take the relatively fratboy belief that if someone shows up in a suit, they're going to be so stiff and rigorred that they're unable to function as programmers.

    I do not subscribe to that notion at all; please don't take this as a defense of that sort of mindset.  All I'm saying is that yes, there really are companies like that.  (It's just that the bulk of them fail miserably, so you don't often hear about them.)

  • StoneCypher (unregistered) in reply to Satanicpuppy
    My problem with tests is syntax. If you start asking me syntax questions on a paper test, then I'll walk out.

    Then you've obviously never been a hiring manager.  When people complain about how someone got into a job despite being utterly clueless, it's generally because the hiring manager didn't take the time to confirm that the person knew what they claimed to know.

    And, to be frank, if you think having a potential employer ask you simple questions is a reason to leave, I think it's pretty obvious that you don't belong in a corporate setting.  The employer has a responsibility to make sure that you're not a clueless idiot, on behalf of their customers.  If you find that offensive, I've no idea how you could be hired in the real world.

    (Unless of course you're being offended simply by someone aiming too low; to that I suggest you consider how easy it is to fake your way out of algorithm questions, but how hard it is to fake concrete knowledge of simple things.  It's very easy to guess that something needs, say, Dijkstra's Walk or R*, when you're a college student without enough practical experience to succeed; the same is not true of simple implementation details.  However, if this is your concern, I've been harsher than you deserve; it's not terribly obvious that syntax questions are better indicators of bullshitters than difficult questions.  The fact of the matter is that you need both; it's not an insult at all.)
  • StoneCypher (unregistered) in reply to Not Registered

    Your "reverse" argument is non sequitur

    Actually, it's a straw man.  Also, Asterix is a comic book character, and you don't refer to a call-out as an asterisk.  Perhaps you should stick to words you know, in the future.

Leave a comment on “Nah'mean? and Other Interview Stories”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article