We’re way way way off topic here, so I’ll
> On Jun 16, 2019, at 3:01 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > > Just to define my terms, I distinguish Leetcode-style "coding tests" from the > old MS-style "puzzles" that Google later adopted for a while I equated puzzles w/ undergraduate algorithm regurgitation knowledge. > I'd be pleasantly surprised if Google, for example, doesn't insist on the > hazing ritual battery for every single one of them, however. Yes Google knows. I spent quite some time talking to a person who analyzed the problem. What Google doesn’t know is what to replace it with. As for our undergraduates, they may not be up there with the best algorithms-memorizing interviews for their co-ops, but they are told to fall back on the HtDP design recipe. And that impresses a certain class of interviewers. (As it did Google.) > That's an interesting way of doing it, and I'll have to ruminate on it, but > you're hurting my advocacy argument on HN yesterday, about when macros are > best used in Racket. :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20191406 As I wrote. patterns in code make me so unhappy that I abstract them, using the minimal tool necessary. But when I scanned this dumb discussion you pointed me to, I couldn’t resist stooping down to their level :)) "Does it matter that for loops don't leave a stack trace? How can poor programmers debug them w/o a stack trace?” — Matthias :) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/A3AFB235-0702-47C3-AE2F-94AACCE2BA9F%40felleisen.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
