Hacker News Reader

Comment by stcredzero | Hacker News Reader

Odds are, one should never trust a programmer who thinks they know [X]. Odds are they only think they know really know [X], but they haven't gone too much farther than figuring out how to use the library.

View on HN

After finding out what language/library someone is most proficient in I always ask them what they find bad/wrong about that language/library.

Amen to that. It's always amazed me how many candidates I've had sputter on something like this. Nothing flips my bozo bit faster than someone claiming a particular language or technology they've supposedly "mastered" is perfect.

I've started asking in interviews what people thought was wrong with a particular language or environment and if they had any thoughts as to features they would want added (or removed).

That reminds me of an interview I did years ago with a Computer Science grad student. His area of study was in compilers, and he said his strongest language was C.

So, I asked him: "what would you improve in C? What's less than ideal about it?" He couldn't tell me a single thing.

One job interview sputter I recently produced:

I worked at a shop with a supposedly Object Oriented architecture. However, one subsystem consisted entirely of Class methods -- very, very long class-side methods with nested loops, deeply nested logic, and a half dozen array simultaneously incremented indexes that recursively called cut-and-paste variant copies of themselves.

Now I work with a different company, but I was interviewing someone who worked at the same shop, and asked him about his opinion of the architecture of the above subsystem. His answer: "It's very nice."

Wait, what?

EDIT: This comment literally says "usually if you think you know something, you don't." So I guess I shouldn't apply for a job using language FooBar, since by this guy's rule I probably don't actually know FooBar.

How does this make sense?

There are two different definitions of "know" in play. That's all it is.

Well, the only (literal) meaning of "know" that doesn't fit what everyone else on this thread was thinking it meant is:

(3) archaic : to have sexual intercourse with

So we should rephrase

"Odds are, one should never trust a programmer who thinks they know [X]. Odds are they only think they know really know [X], but they haven't gone too much farther than figuring out how to use the library."

With something along the lines of

"Odds are, one should never trust a programmer who thinks they have had sex with [X]. Odds are they only think they have had sex with really have had sex with [X], but they haven't gone too much farther than figuring out how to use the library."

What is this smut in my Hacker News?

source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/know

Or perhaps you meant implications of the word "know" in play? (:

Well, I always did feel like I was getting fucked by C++.

Maybe the idea is that a competent programmer is also humble.

I guessed that was the meaning a long time ago, but it's just amusing to read it literally.

And, I'd add, not humble naturally but got that way by being humbled again and again by his knowledge.

Yes, exactly! I didn't become the half-decent programmer that I am until I finally embraced the fact that my code sucks and adopted highly defensive coding practices as a result.

Note the comment makes no absolute statement. Note the reference to "odds." This is almost the same idea as: "Remember, most people think they're an above average driver. Also remember, half the people are below average drivers."

It's also along the same lines as, "There's always someone better than you."

Also note the use of "really." "Know" is twice accompanied by the adjective "really." I would've thought this would make it clear that I wasn't talking about "a little knowledge." The odds are that a programmer does have "a little knowledge" about [X].

Given that you, despite claiming to be puzzled didn't try to take "odds" or the frequent use of the adjective into account, I wonder if you are apt to catch details like that. Maybe this would make a good interview question for coders?

Maybe you could go fuck yourself?

     Also remember, half the people are below average drivers.

Depends on what you mean by "average". If you mean "median" you are correct, but if you mean "mean" (like most people do) this is not necessarily true for most interesting situations.

A simple example where most people are above the mean is that most people have an above average number of legs.

Usually, the more you know, the less you know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com