• (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    wtf:
    Although, now that I think of it, abstract classes can implement interfaces, can't they? Hm...

    Ah, but any un-implemented interface methods have to be declared as part of the abstract class and implemented by any concrete children. So you're safe.

    No more explicitly than an interface has to redeclare the methods of the interfaces it extends. It's just this

    public abstract class MyClass implements MyInterface {}

    vs this:

    public interface MySpecificInterface extends MyInterface {}

    They both compile regardless of the methods defined in MyInterface.

  • (cs)

    Who was that first company? Magenta Co?! Talk about an oddball place with a kook of a boss.

  • (cs) in reply to wtf
    wtf:
    Markp:
    Dank:
    you need

    class Heap<T extends Comparable<T>

    instead of

    class Heap<T implements Comparable<T>

    Ah, yes. That is unintuitive.
    As for the reason, I've since forgotten it.
    Often, the only reason worth remembering is "because that's how the language designers made it."

    While I haven't played with generics much, I would assume it's because T is itself treated as an interface, rather than as an abstract class, and interfaces extend other interfaces, they do not implement them.

    That's an interesting theory, but it breaks down when you realize that T can "extend" a class as well whereas an interface cannot.

    Myself, I think it's just due to wanting to keep it to one (already reserved) keyword and a preference in terminology. "Extends" works across the board to denote type inheritance. Since the right-hand side of "extends" in a generic specifier can be a class OR an interface, it's the more suitable choice.

    Using "implements" would make very little sense, particularly since the right-hand side can be a concrete class. It denotes fulfilling a contract, which is not what the generic operator is used for (it's used strictly for type hierarchy).

  • Ajtacka (unregistered)

    Personally, I'd hate to work somewhere with a suit-level dress code. Why? Coz I'm a jeans-and-tshirt kinda girl. I like being able to throw on some clothes in the morning without thinking too much. And for a girl, dressing nicely does take thought. I have much better things to think about than what shoes go with that skirt or which jacket I can wear with those trousers.

  • Mike D. (unregistered)

    So... could someone please explain what an MDE file is and why one would recoil at it? I haven't been within ten meters of Access in my life.

  • AnOldRelic (unregistered) in reply to Boss
    Boss:
    Wearing a suit to an interview has little to do with how good you look or how formal you can be, it is about showing how much you want the job.

    Anyway... When do we get to hear the prostitute joke? That's the only reason I kept reading. Anyone got one?

    Two hookers walk into a bar. They fall over and say "ouch."

    I'm here all night.

  • (cs) in reply to Mike D.
    Mike D.:
    So... could someone please explain what an MDE file is and why one would recoil at it? I haven't been within ten meters of Access in my life.
    It's the "compiled" version of the database. However, it's important to note how Access works. Both the tables and the forms (as well as any queries or libraries) are built into the same file. So when you provide an "application" to the user, you can provide either the MDE (which does not need VB(a)'s just in time compiling) or you can provide the MDB (which allows editing of the source but must be initial-recompiled if any changes are made). The "nice thing" about MDE's is that no reverse compiling of the app is supposed to be possible.

    For the speed of modern computers, if you're really using Access for an inhouse app, there's no reason to give the MDE except to force people to use that specific interface to follow business logic.

    However, having written MDE style apps for a number of years, if I ever go back to that I think I should like to be shot instead. Food's not that important anymore...

  • Si vis pacem, para tus (unregistered) in reply to JamesQMurphy
    JamesQMurphy:
    Anon:
    The Real Jason:
    "Surprisingly I got an interview the following week and turned up on the day in the usual straight-out-of-school ill-fitting suit"

    Oh yes I remember those suits well, I still can never decide when I should wear a suit or not to an interview, I mean in IT (programmer specifically) should we wear a suit or is a standard blue collar and a tie acceptable?

    Always wear a suit.

    And for $deity's sake, check your appearance in a mirror and brush your teeth.

    Null pointer error.

  • SQL Dave (unregistered) in reply to Boss
    Boss:
    Wearing a suit to an interview has little to do with how good you look or how formal you can be, it is about showing how much you want the job.

    Anyway... When do we get to hear the prostitute joke? That's the only reason I kept reading. Anyone got one?

    Guy comes home to find his wife packing (her suitcase, not a gun, nor fudge). When asked what she's doing she says "I'm moving to Vegas. I just found out that hookers there get $1000 for what I give you for free."

    She takes the suitcase to the car and comes back for her purse and sees her husband also packing (his suitcase, etc.) "What are YOU doing?!?" she demands.

    He replies "I'm moving to Vegas too. I want to see how you live on $6000 a year."

  • (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    I wore a suit to a baseball game on Friday, so I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

    I wore it simply because I wanted to, because it looks good on me, and it's comfortable. I understand that many people, especially IT folks, see clothes as something more functional and less decorative, but I think that's a really sad attitude. Clothes are fun, and suits are just one of those great things to have and wear, especially when you find a suit that looks good on you and fits well.

    Also: hats. People really need to wear nice hats.

    I think that in general women wear clothes to look pretty and men wear clothes so that they are not naked. (Of course there are exceptions to this observation)

    FWIW I have only once ever worn a suit and that was to a formal. All interviews and my wedding I was wearing a business shirt and slacks.

  • Jeff (unregistered) in reply to Zemm
    Zemm:
    I think that in general women wear clothes to look pretty and men wear clothes so that they are not naked.
    More to the point, men wear clothes so they won't get arrested for being naked.

    Meanwhile, if women would just join us in naked freedom, they would find they don't have to work quite so hard at looking pretty.

  • Andrew in a Suit (unregistered)

    While all you geeks are arguing about the technical merits of a piece of cloth, you have missed the point that wearing a suit is worth an extra 25% on your salary. In consultancy, you can't easily get more than a couple of hundred a day without one.

  • (cs) in reply to Andrew in a Suit
    Andrew in a Suit:
    While all you geeks are arguing about the technical merits of a piece of cloth, you have missed the point that wearing a suit is worth an extra 25% on your salary. In consultancy, you can't easily get more than a couple of hundred a day without one.
    If I understand you correctly:

    50 weeks in a year (you do take a minimum of a two week vacation right?) times 5 days a week (well, consultancy, but anyways, workweek)...

    250 days in a year, divided into my current salary (meager by many standards, comfortable but not "great" by mine), results in over $200 a day. At 8 hours a day, that $200 cap is less than $25/hour.

    So remind me again how consultants will make less than that if they don't wear a suit? I wear slacks and a polo everyday...

  • Steve W. (unregistered) in reply to Swedish tard

    I wouldn't want to wear a suit everyday to work either, but don't you think it's a good idea to try your hardest to win points any way you can with a first impression? If you get the job, you'll probably never have to wear a suit to that office again, but you need to get the job first.

  • fjf (unregistered) in reply to ARMed but harmless
    ARMed but harmless:
    ARMed but harmless:
    Anon:
    Always wear a suit.

    And glasses. Be the mild mannered software at day, so that no supects your secret identity!

    software engineer

    No, actually, you are just software, like the rest of the matrix.

  • Consult This (unregistered) in reply to Andrew in a Suit
    Andrew in a Suit:
    While all you geeks are arguing about the technical merits of a piece of cloth, you have missed the point that wearing a suit is worth an extra 25% on your salary. In consultancy, you can't easily get more than a couple of hundred a day without one.
    $300 a day here, no suit since 1995.
  • Soronel Haetir (unregistered)

    Am I the only one who got the impression that Steve and the giant boss were related, most likely father and son?

  • Some Guy (unregistered) in reply to The Real Jason
    The Real Jason:
    Oh yes I remember those suits well, I still can never decide when I should wear a suit or not to an interview, I mean in IT (programmer specifically) should we wear a suit or is a standard blue collar and a tie acceptable?
    If you normally wear a suit, then wear a suit. If not, dress as well as you do when you actually care, but not a suit.

    If they say "you're not in a suit? and you seriously want to work here?" and struggle to contain their laughter, you wern't going to enjoy the job even if your ill-fitting suit pleased them. the interview will have done its less well-known job - let you decide whether or not you would accept a job offer.

    If you want to work for a bank, wear a suit, and like it.

  • Some Guy (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    I know that I'm old fashioned, but I always boggle at people who wear t-shirts outside of their house. If it doesn't have a collar, it's not a shirt- it's an undershirt.
    Old fashioned? If you're wearing a suit at your age, you're a bona fide miracle of modern medical technology.

    Seriously, since Victoria was a gleam in her father's eye, "men wear suits" has been the official definition of "well dressed". Prior to then there was enormous variety, but this offended puritans like you.

    While good suits will continue to be good, in real life fashion is going to expand rather than remain a slave to Victorian puritans, and many things other than a "suit" will be popular.

    This will suck for people who can't cope with actual change in fashion and instead pray for a return to a time when fiddling with the arrangement of pockets but otherwise making a suit look like a suit from a hundred years previously was the height of fashion excitement, but eventually you're all going to die, and the rest of us will move on.

    God save the Queen!

  • Some Guy (unregistered) in reply to Andrew in a Suit
    Andrew in a Suit:
    While all you geeks are arguing about the technical merits of a piece of cloth, you have missed the point that wearing a suit is worth an extra 25% on your salary. In consultancy, you can't easily get more than a couple of hundred a day without one.
    Not only that, but as a consultant in a suit, you can get your own twice-daily postings on this site, for free!

    Honestly, in all the posts here where people wonder how a total retard even gets the job in the first place, yet alone a position of authority, an ability to look good in a suit and talk bullshit is 95% of the reason.

    A clown in a nice suit can get paid very well. But some of us are really weird fuckers, and put some importance on "actual competence" and the funny thing is that actual competence can pay really well if you find a boss who judges you on things other than your clothing.

    If you're actually competent, being rejected by a thousand monkeys in suits looking for clowns in suits is far better than working in a place full of clowns in suits.

  • Xythar (unregistered) in reply to Kensey
    Kensey:
    Last time I went out job-hunting, I went out on three rounds of interviews and had an offer reasonably quickly, and that even with breaking the rule of "don't bring coffee in with you".

    I think the writer of that article forgot rule #16, 'When writing an article about professionalism, try to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" so that you can avoid using the wrong one 3 times in every paragraph'. I mean, c'mon.

  • Random dude (unregistered) in reply to Carl
    Carl:
    Agreed. And I don't want the job that much. If I'm interviewing at the right place, they want me.

    Not in my experience. First job was just that. They wanted me and as soon as possible. Reason was huge turnovers due to crappy work environment with horrible pay and unhealthy stress levels (even for IT).

    If you find a dream job there will be at least 5 others applicants that are equally or better skilled than you. You need to convince them that you're still the better option.

  • nerfer (unregistered)

    I've stepped down to a sports jacket for the interview, and button shirt with a tie for the first day on the job (when you're likely to be introduced to the various bosses). (My wife helped me with those choices, that's a little too nuanced for an engineer like myself).

    I haven't worked in a place where my boss wore a suit (on a regular basis) ever, and I've been working since '91. On the east coast it's still a little more formal, and also at larger companies where you're working at the headquarters (where the execs are at).

    I have had to dress up for the occasional trade shows and such, so wearing good clothes shows your prospective boss you can be useful in those situations, but generally you feel really out of place in a suit getting a tour of the company on your interview.

    But honestly, being polite and speaking intelligently is the best way to land a job. If they hire people only on their looks and clothes, there's going to be too much politics at that job to make it worthwhile. Of course, the 3rd way to get hired is to have connections.

  • Self (unregistered) in reply to mrs_helm
    mrs_helm:
    Same goes for those with tattoos and piercings. Hide them for interviews, if possible.

    Good tip.

    Note to self: Keep trousers on at interviews.

  • Barry J (unregistered) in reply to Ajtacka
    Ajtacka:
    Personally, I'd hate to work somewhere with a suit-level dress code. Why? Coz I'm a jeans-and-tshirt kinda girl.

    OH MY GOD ITS A GIRL EVERYONE ACT NORMAL!!!!!!!!

  • anon (unregistered) in reply to Barry J
    Barry J:
    Ajtacka:
    Personally, I'd hate to work somewhere with a suit-level dress code. Why? Coz I'm a jeans-and-tshirt kinda girl.

    OH MY GOD ITS A GIRL EVERYONE ACT NORMAL!!!!!!!!

    Win.

  • (cs) in reply to drachenstern
    drachenstern:
    It's the "compiled" version of the database. However, it's important to note how Access works. Both the tables and the forms (as well as any queries or libraries) are built into the same file.

    Just when I thought my wrists had healed . . .

    I found out once, when I was a newbie, many years back how utterly disastrous it is to keep the data and the forms in the same file. One database crash was all it took to look at sticking the forms in one file and the data in another. Didn't use the wizard (whatever the hell it was called). I just made the links myself to the backend database file.

    The other big pain-in-the-ass issue with MS Access (as if there aren't boatloads of them anyway) is that, in order to change the forms, everyone had to be out of the database so it could get an exclusive lock. Even if it was a minor code change with no change to the physical form itself, it had to have an exclusive lock which meant coordinating a time for everyone to be out of the thing. This for a busy communications center that, on the fortunate side, only had a few stations so it wasn't that bad trying to get everyone out for just a few minutes.

    I inherited this monstrosity from someone else and when I wanted to set up my own Postgres server, I was told by my manager I couldn't do it because it needed to be in the data center where it could be backed up, monitored, etc. etc. etc. We didn't get along very well with the format IT department at the time so the idea got dropped.

    The follow-up to this is that I left that position to get into networking, the person who replaced me was at it for about 6 months at which point my former manager left, then my replacement got to do whatever he wanted and he did what I wanted to do (plus more -- he created a new Web-based database system, PHP-based, implemented a Web-based notification system for the users, etc. -- from what I've seen he did a fine job with it).

    Addendum (2010-05-12 10:24): s/format IT/formal IT/

  • z f k (unregistered) in reply to Markp
    Markp:
    Boss:
    Anyway... When do we get to hear the prostitute joke? ... Anyone got one?
    What did the prostitute say when she walked into a bar?

    ANSWER>>Ouch!<<ANSWER

    That's what she said?

    captcha: eros

  • (cs)

    While I enjoy reading through the eruption of egoes of IT gurus who refuse to wear a decent suit to a job interview, I'd like to remind you - we're not in 1995 anymore. Back when IT guys were rare, companies had to put up with bearded grizzlies wearing sandals and shorts all day, and if they were lucky, a shirt. Today, every year universities spit out hundreds of trained monkeys^H^H^H^H^H^H^H professionals. Some of them actually enjoy showering every day, and some don't mind wearing a suit to an interview. Also, in some parts of the world, not wearing a suit to an interview (even when applying for a duct cleaner position) is considered an insult. And from a personal point of view - wearing a suit is not that bad. It's comfortable and everybody looks good in a suit.

  • Marc (unregistered)

    My interview started with the boss showing up on time, but stating he isn't allowed to start without the HR person in the room. So we talked about the weather or something. Then the HR person showed up and asked the standard "what did I miss" question, to which I answered "We just had some idle chat, he asked my age, marital status, religion, you know, the standard stuff."

    Further in the interview, boss said "I see you have Linux on there, you any good with that?" To which I answered "No, that's just resume filler."

    I got the job and enjoyed working there (more than 5 years).

  • Pale Brit (unregistered) in reply to Tom
    Tom:
    It's obvious that the first story was written by a British-English speaker. That's why some of you are confused.

    The "orange tan" description gave it away. I believe that other English speaking countries get real sunlight but the fake orange tan is a common sight here.

  • Someone Awful (unregistered) in reply to amischiefr
    amischiefr:
    Lorne Kates:
    I'm not sure why she didn't think that maybe, just maybe, the documentation team might recognize their own documentation.

    Because even the doc team doesn't RTFM?

    Of course not, they WTFM, duh...
    So, to them it's WORM?

  • Someone Awful (unregistered) in reply to (username *me)
    (username *me):
    Jurgen:
    I don't even have a suit!

    That phrasing makes me think you've worn one....

    Not only can I say I don't and have not owned a suit, but I can say(honest to god) that I haven't even worn one!

    Go rent a tux sell-out!

    What do penguins have to do with it?

  • Chris (unregistered) in reply to Dank
    like why you need to extend an interface in an abstract class declaration instead of implement

    Huh ? Isn't it "interface can extend a super-interface and an abstract class can implement an interface" ?

  • (cs) in reply to bob
    bob:
    What the hell is a "British-English speaker"? I think you mean an "English speaker". Presumably as opposed to one of these modern bastardised dialects.

    If you mean American English, then in many ways it is a more traditional dialect than British English. The most noticable grammar and spelling differences between American and British English are where the former uses older forms ("-ize" instead of "-ise" or "-er" instead of "-re" for example) that have passed out of usage elsewhere.

  • Quresh (unregistered) in reply to Dank

    Well that was obviously a trick question (abstract classes don't "extends" an interface, they still "implement" it). Obviously they screwed you up on that one.

  • Quresh (unregistered) in reply to wtf
    wtf:
    Remy Porter:
    wtf:
    Although, now that I think of it, abstract classes can implement interfaces, can't they? Hm...

    Ah, but any un-implemented interface methods have to be declared as part of the abstract class and implemented by any concrete children. So you're safe.

    That's right. So my explanation doesn't work - interface methods are abstract, internally, by definition, even if they're not explicitly declared abstract. So for an interface to implement an interface would be fine from that standpoint.

    Maybe it's just that the designers thought the logic worked better this way. "An interface can't implement an interface, because an interface can't implement. So we say it extends, and it does the same thing as implementing".

    By using extends for interface, you allow the child interface to override methods in the parent. Implements tells the compiler that the class implements all the methods of the given interface. With implements for interface hierarchy you'd only be able to achieve overloading and not overriding.

  • Josephus (unregistered) in reply to Consult This
    Consult This:
    Andrew in a Suit:
    While all you geeks are arguing about the technical merits of a piece of cloth, you have missed the point that wearing a suit is worth an extra 25% on your salary. In consultancy, you can't easily get more than a couple of hundred a day without one.
    $300 a day here, no suit since 1995.

    15 years experience and $300 a day? You should have worn a suit!

  • Gill Bates (unregistered) in reply to Boss
    Boss:
    Wearing a suit to an interview has little to do with how good you look or how formal you can be, it is about showing how much you want the job.

    It's a real shame that superfluous items of fabric have a hand in determining your existence. I'd rather the prospective employer was a little more imaginative and laid down some actual challenges during interview, not just your ability to dress yourself in unfamiliar clothing.

    Want the job? You can have it if you drink that entire bottle of Blair's Ultra Death Sauce, it's yours if you put on that lacy underwear and go into the CEO's office, you can start today if you help me make this obscene phone call..

    that kind of thing. it'd certainly weed out the candidates who view your job opportunity as a backup option.

    Boss:
    Anyway... When do we get to hear the prostitute joke? That's the only reason I kept reading. Anyone got one?

    Is this a call for a prostitute joke thread?

  • Ziplodocus (unregistered)

    How many prostitutes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

  • (cs) in reply to Josephus
    Josephus:
    Consult This:
    Andrew in a Suit:
    While all you geeks are arguing about the technical merits of a piece of cloth, you have missed the point that wearing a suit is worth an extra 25% on your salary. In consultancy, you can't easily get more than a couple of hundred a day without one.
    $300 a day here, no suit since 1995.

    15 years experience and $300 a day? You should have worn a suit!

    Agreed. I like wearing suits, and I'd be insulted if someone offered me $300 per day.

  • Totally Not Using My Real Name (unregistered) in reply to Ziplodocus
    Ziplodocus:
    How many prostitutes does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    It depends on how much you pay them.

    What is the difference between a prostitute and a lawyer? The prostitute stops screwing you after you're dead.

  • Zim (unregistered) in reply to Ziplodocus
    Ziplodocus:

    First rule of tautology club...

    Pretty much, you are prostituting yourself in a job interview. You're demonstrating, to the best of your abilities, that you're willing to be f*cked in the a$$ regularly in order to recieve money...

    ...or is that just where I work

    Well, if it were Irish Girl wearing some sort of leather outfit and there was some vigorous spanking involved, sure.

  • nB (unregistered) in reply to mrs_helm
    mrs_helm:
    It's not to show that cloth is vital to programming. It is to display that you are capable of showing respect for the company and the people to whom you will be reporting, and that you are capable of conforming to social norms for specific situations. It might not have prevented you from getting a job thus far, but it certainly can't hurt.

    You may think you do not want to work for someone who makes those kinds of judgements, but in reality everyone does, and you're only hurting yourself by refusing to play the system.

    Same goes for those with tattoos and piercings. Hide them for interviews, if possible.

    Last intervier I went to I wore a tie dye & jeans, hair was in a pony tail, and I hadn't shaved in three or four days. That said, they called me for the interview at 4:00 and asked if I could be there by 4:30. I said sure as long as you don't mind that I'm 20 min away, currently wearing casual cloths, and not at all dressed to impress. They really didn't care. On the bright side, what they cared about was if I could automate their test environment, so I brought a sample app I wrote, with source, and the rest is history.

  • Whiskey, Eh? (unregistered) in reply to nB

    [quote user="nB"]

    Same goes for those with tattoos and piercings. Hide them for interviews, if possible.[/quote]Last intervier I went to I wore a tie dye & jeans, hair was in a pony tail, and I hadn't shaved in three or four days. That said, they called me for the interview at 4:00 and asked if I could be there by 4:30. I said sure as long as you don't mind that I'm 20 min away, currently wearing casual cloths, and not at all dressed to impress. They really didn't care. On the bright side, what they cared about was if I could automate their test environment, so I brought a sample app I wrote, with source, and the rest is history.[/quote]

    It takes you more than 10 minutes to shave and change into some nice clothes?

  • ARMed but harmless (unregistered) in reply to Barry J
    Barry J:
    Ajtacka:
    Personally, I'd hate to work somewhere with a suit-level dress code. Why? Coz I'm a jeans-and-tshirt kinda girl.

    OH MY GOD ITS A GIRL EVERYONE ACT NORMAL!!!!!!!!

    Too late. Ajtacka, marry me! Yup, way too late.

  • Luis Espinal (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Anon:
    Really Ray? Did you have to tell Steve's boss that you thought Steve was an idiot? The boss apparently didn't seem to care, but still. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
    Honesty is the best policy. A "white" lie is still a lie.

    No, it is not. Self-restrain is a better policy (and a sign of maturity). Furthermore, honesty has nothing to do with being correct, factual, objective, professional or mature. After all, one can be honest in expressing a gratuitous, unwarranted insult.

    The only time you give a negative assessment is when 1) it is your job to do so, or 2) when it is the moral or legal thing to do, and only when it is factual and applicable to a particular context or time.

    I knew a lot of people in college and past jobs that were idiotic, but I'm not going to bad-mouth them because 1) people change (sometimes for better, sometimes for worse), and 2) because the idiocy I saw in them is a projection of my own stupidity, intolerance and arrogance on others. I would be characterizing them from how I knew them, not from who they might be now.

    Furthermore, why would I make an statement that might hurt someone else, even if it is true (or was true at some in time) when there is no clear objective good obtained from it?

    Honesty without maturity is just infantile, emotional yapping.

    Honesty is the best policy when it is called for it.

  • causa anda effacta (unregistered) in reply to Someone Awful
    Someone Awful:
    amischiefr:
    Lorne Kates:
    I'm not sure why she didn't think that maybe, just maybe, the documentation team might recognize their own documentation.

    Because even the doc team doesn't RTFM?

    Of course not, they WTFM, duh...
    So, to them it's WORM?
    Who cares about republicans?

  • grav is (unregistered) in reply to Xythar
    Xythar:
    Kensey:
    Last time I went out job-hunting, I went out on three rounds of interviews and had an offer reasonably quickly, and that even with breaking the rule of "don't bring coffee in with you".

    I think the writer of that article forgot rule #16, 'When writing an article about professionalism, try to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" so that you can avoid using the wrong one 3 times in every paragraph'. I mean, c'mon.

    What about rule 34?

  • El Bastardo (unregistered) in reply to Andrew in a Suit
    Andrew in a Suit:
    While all you geeks are arguing about the technical merits of a piece of cloth, you have missed the point that wearing a suit is worth an extra 25% on your salary. In consultancy, you can't easily get more than a couple of hundred a day without one.

    I make almost $800/day and I do it in shorts and a t-shirt.

Leave a comment on “The Raybinator, Copy & Paste Error, and Yes I Do”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article