February 13, 2011 at 3:12 am
Publically, then. As you wish.
nadabadan (2/12/2011)
I'm more aggravated at the mindless horde who have decided to inject themselves into this thread.
At my request, actually, since the last time I decided to verbally abuse someone of your caliber I got a few PMs asking me not to do so again for the professionality of the board by some other folks. They would have passed on but I brought it to their attention. Yet another reason to be annoyed with me, not them, for their opinions on your ability to debate.
One found my post to be insulting ( I have no idea how ) and so naturally the other lemmings followed suit. They contributed nothing but drivel to this thread. Read my post to GSquared and then read your post to me. Other than you went off on a tangent, whereas I made an actual point, our posts were similar in tone and format.
True, but I didn't detour to the tangent until you did. Shall we review?
Or how about if you want to see how much a person REALLY knows about T-SQL or want to see their thought process. I doubt these people actually use the CASE statement to find the MAX value. But forcing someone to write a solution using CASE shows whether that person has some experience in T-SQL or just some superficial knowledge of T-SQL gleaned of a book the night before the interview.
... or that I've been working with T-SQL for 10 years, performed rediculously difficult algorithms, but really never saw the reason to make my life harder on myself by ignoring my screwdriver to find new ways to use my hammer and wrench.
Note, our first exchange. No tangents, yet, simply a back and forth regarding the value of the question in our eyes. Now, you've begun to take offence simply because I didn't immediately agree with you, though I'll give you there was sarcasm in that last statement. So, the next exchange:
Right and if you have 10 years of experience with T-SQL, this question would have been a breeze and you would understand the REASON for the question. And since you bring up "algorithms", this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm.
So, to your last question:
And yet, only my post was insulting?
No, NOW I got insulting, though gently from my perspective. I will not argue that point.
Not entirely sure why the interviewer was stuck on the CASE component anyway. A simple order by DESC with a top 1 descriptor deals with it, cross apply for multiple rows. It's still a silly question to me. To drive a screw, grab a sledgehammer.
Also, to make sure that we're debating apples to apples:
Algorithm:
A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
It's not any one specific component.
Your inability to look up a simple definition that you don't have a grasp of made it obvious I was dealing with someone who wasn't familiar enough with the topic. Ignorance I try to teach away, if gently. However, you turned a blind eye to your depth.
You not only continue to throw away established fact (this board IS used by certain recruiters to ascertain the abilities of possible candidates), you imply that a well respected and helpful member of this community is throwing a hissy fit instead of simply stating his case.
You continue in this regard with this:
The interviewer wasn't asking what is the best or even a good way to find the min/max value. When you are forced to use a CASE statement, you have to implement a basic algorithm for finding the maximum or minimum values of a set/list. If you have a computer science background, I think you will have an appreciation for this question. Any basic data structures and algorithms book would have something like this.
Now, with a statement like this, specifically the bolded components, I am forced to assume you have a computer science background, and you have read books on these topics. This simple assumption means that this exchange between us makes as much sense as nipples on a banana:
The question is poor regardless of the desire to use it in the context of SQL Server. You've gone off on computer science theory backgrounds (what A* pathfinding, Bubble tree logic, and hardware buffer usage has to do with coding in SQL Server is beyond me...) and algorithmic methodology after I simply mentioned the word. Yet, you have yet to mention what it shows, in SQL Server, other than the ability to show you can puzzle out bad ways to do things. What specific items does this question highlight that you can't arrive at without using poor practices?
Computer science theory background? What the hell is bubble tree logic? Hardware buffer usage? You are just writing nonsense to sound intelligent. The algorithm I was referring to is the simple algorithm every computer science student has to solve. Given a set, finding the max or min value.
If you're going to test for min/max algorithms at the engine level, you'd need something of this nature. In an interview, you're going to test for either basic knowledge of computer methodology, or proper usage of the engine/environment you're in. If you're going to test for computer basics, such as if you were building the SQL engine itself, this question would make sense. Your lack of knowledge of these basic computer theory items proves this wasn't the intent behind your need to know how someone would build a different way to pull this value out of a structure.
Admittedly A* is usually only useful in robotic AI or gaming software, something I've got a passion for and shouldn't have been included alongside a mention of basic sorting methodologies and speedy memory usage. A mistake on my part, as I forget not everyone studied computer theory for the same reasons I did. Oops. However, that wasn't the item you took offense to. Your ignorance on some basic programming methods in sorting alone proves this wasn't what you were looking for, or if it was, you were misinformed as to the level of expertise you should be looking to achieve.
So, since this isn't the purpose of the question, to ascertain the person's basic knowledge of computer theory, then it's an engine specific question. Since you're looking for an engine specific question, I will repeat my one of my original arguments here: To what purpose is asking someone looking for a job programming in a specific application how to do things badly in said application?
Now, since you have mistaken my attempt at tutoring for belligerance, allow me to show you the difference. You obviously need it directly reversed to see the point.
If you want to show thought, there's many other more accurate approaches that doesn't test your ability to do things the 'wrong way'.
What nonsense. The question doesn't test your ability to do things the 'wrong way', but rather tests whether you can solve a simple problem.
Nonsense? No, using the engine like an idiot to do things in a backwards methodology against the entire purpose of using rowset methodology is "nonsense". That there are other approaches to ascertain a person's level of ability is not nonsense, it's a simple truth. That it doesn't agree with your vision of said truth makes you a fool, not the fact nonsense.
Try this yourself. It's getting at one thing: Can you figure out how to code in SQL badly?
Wrong. You can tell a lot about what someone knows by how and whether someone can answer this question. You can tell NOTHING by having someone write "SELECT MAX( column ) FROM table".
Ah, words in my mouth. Where in my previous statement...
If you want to test an interviewee in design, the way they think, and their proficiency in T-SQL, there are other, simpler ways, even using the same topic. For example: Describe to me three ways to find the most recent row from a single table with a datetime field, and describe to me the methods you'd use to determine which was fastest for your specific case.
Similar question (requires a MAX on the datefield), yet derives much more information and you avoid completely poor coding requirements that don't make sense to anyone who regularly works with it.
... do you see me say "Ask them how to write SELECT MAX(column) FROM TABLE"? Oh, funny, I don't. So, not only do you base your emotional debate on ignorance, but now on mis-representation. Now we have switched from simple poor form to dirty tactics.
Your argument:
You just don't get it. The point was not to use MAX. The point was to implement the MAX function in a way. By answering the question using CASE, you describe how the MAX function may be implement behind the scenes.
Which is done, as far as I've been able to ascertain, as close to assembler as possible to get the most speed out of the engine as is realistically achievable. If you want to have someone figure out how it's implemented behind the scenes, try calling Microsoft. If you want to have a decent SQL Developer, have someone who's learned how to use Microsoft's engine. You're telling me you expect an applicant to be able to decipher the engine's coding out of the blue? Cripes, why don't you ask him to develop your new summer home on the moon while you're at it.
I'm still waiting for an answer to this question other than I'm apparently too dumb to realize what you in your god given gift of thought have realized:
What specific items does this question highlight that you can't arrive at without using poor practices?
Now, a few more items from your personal bag of arrogance. And yes, I'm quite aware I'm the pot and you're the kettle at this point:
First of all, you don't speak for everyone. So stop telling me how everyone read it. Not everyone reads as poorly as you do. My post was meant to be insulting. It was insulting to Craig and his supposed 10 years of experience. Did you read post that I was responding to? If you want sarcastic and insulting read Craig's post. The one I was responding to.
For the first part, we've been asked nicely by the board moderators not to all jump on the bandwagon with the equivalent of a 'Me, too!'. A single person or two making the statement is enough in their eyes. So, her statement is not horribly inaccurate, unless a disagreeing voice was heard.
However, since you obviously MEANT to be insulting, why the heck would you go on proclaiming your inoffensiveness for the next series of posts? Yeesh. You've just got all sorts of bad habits, don't you?
You found my original statement of my personal experience to be sarcastic and insulting? Well then, for that one and only item, I do apologize. It certainly wasn't meant that way and if you took it that way it was poorly worded for someone of your easily hurt ego. Sorry for damaging your e-peen.
So, was that clear enough for you to see the difference in my previous method of attempting to explain and discuss with you the different items, or do you consider this phrasing of insulting language standard forum communication?
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
February 13, 2011 at 7:12 am
True, but I didn't detour to the tangent until you did. Shall we review?
Please, let's do so. But let's do it PROPERLY.
Craig Farrell (2/8/2011)
nadabadan (2/8/2011)
GSquared (2/7/2011)
I see three possibilities here:1. A prior dev/DBA used oddball tricks like that, and everyone currently working there hates it, and it's a "trick question" to see if you'd continue practices that everyone hates.
2. The person doing the interview uses oddball tricks like that, either out of miseducation, ego gratification, or "job security".
3. The company or department has policies that force them to use oddball coding practices, probably due to Pointy-Haired-Boss Syndrome.
Or how about if you want to see how much a person REALLY knows about T-SQL or want to see their thought process. I doubt these people actually use the CASE statement to find the MAX value. But forcing someone to write a solution using CASE shows whether that person has some experience in T-SQL or just some superficial knowledge of T-SQL gleaned of a book the night before the interview.
... or that I've been working with T-SQL for 10 years, performed rediculously difficult algorithms, but really never saw the reason to make my life harder on myself by ignoring my screwdriver to find new ways to use my hammer and wrench.
GSquared assertion was that there were THREE possibilities for why the question was asked. I disagreed because I thought there were other possibilities for the question. So I offered ANOTHER possibility of why the question might be asked - directly addressing and refuting GSquared's assertion. In logic, when some claims a possibility of X,Y and Z, the way you attack that claim is by providing evidence of another possibility. Instead of addressing my point, you went off on your little tangent - 10 years experience ( who cares ), "rediculous" difficult algorithms ( which Mr. Mgoo's logic is NOT, it is fairly standard, basic algorithm ), making life harder by ignoring your screwdriver and using the hammer and wrench. You seem to be arguing that "SELECT MAX(column) FROM Table" is a better solution than Mr. Mgoo's. Nobody, not me, mr.mgoo and anyone alive on earth would disagree with that. But can you find where I said CASE statement solution was better than using the MAX function? You won't find it because I never said it. What I was arguing was that you can learn more from an interviewee by having him solve the question with the CASE statement than having him write "SELECT MAX( column ) FROM Table1 because the former requires substantial experience with T-SQL and the other requires NONE ( you could just open a T-SQL book and learn it in a second ). Now can you SEE that YOU went off a TANGENT. You are arguing against an assertion that was never made. You either misread what I wrote or you had nothing to offer so decided to write sarcastic nonsense.
February 13, 2011 at 7:54 am
Note, our first exchange. No tangents, yet, simply a back and forth regarding the value of the question in our eyes. Now, you've begun to take offence simply because I didn't immediately agree with you, though I'll give you there was sarcasm in that last statement. So, the next exchange:
You need to go over the thread again. People have been complaining about the first exchange. Particularly, the "REALLY".
Not entirely sure why the interviewer was stuck on the CASE component anyway. A simple order by DESC with a top 1 descriptor deals with it, cross apply for multiple rows. It's still a silly question to me. To drive a screw, grab a sledgehammer.
Also, to make sure that we're debating apples to apples:
Algorithm:
A step-by-step problem-solving procedure, especially an established, recursive computational procedure for solving a problem in a finite number of steps.
It's not any one specific component.
I didn't write any of the above, so your gripe is with some other poster.
If you're going to test for min/max algorithms at the engine level, you'd need something of this nature. In an interview, you're going to test for either basic knowledge of computer methodology, or proper usage of the engine/environment you're in. If you're going to test for computer basics, such as if you were building the SQL engine itself, this question would make sense. Your lack of knowledge of these basic computer theory items proves this wasn't the intent behind your need to know how someone would build a different way to pull this value out of a structure.
All I said was that having some use the CASE statement to solve the question reveals more about the interviewee than "SELECT MAX( column ) FROM table". The point of an INTERVIEW is to tease out as much information about the interviewee's skill level as possible. If you think min/max algorithms is just useful for people who code the sql engine, then you are sorely mistaken. But then to you, knowledge of linked-lists and balanced trees is of no use to a DBA.
Admittedly A* is usually only useful in robotic AI or gaming software, something I've got a passion for and shouldn't have been included alongside a mention of basic sorting methodologies and speedy memory usage.
You may have a passion for it, but I highly doubt you have any understanding of it. I actually have some knowledge of AI and search heuristics, so I think I could find at least one more area where A* would be useful.
Your ignorance on some basic programming methods in sorting alone proves this wasn't what you were looking for, or if it was, you were misinformed as to the level of expertise you should be looking to achieve.
All you did was awkwardly toss keywords to impress the mindless drones here, but you have convinced me that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. "Basic programming methods in sorting", "basic sorting methodologies", "speedy memory usage". Please do go on.
So, since this isn't the purpose of the question, to ascertain the person's basic knowledge of computer theory, then it's an engine specific question. Since you're looking for an engine specific question, I will repeat my one of my original arguments here: To what purpose is asking someone looking for a job programming in a specific application how to do things badly in said application?
When did I say it was a engine specific question? When did I claim it was a question about basic knowledge of "computer theory". What I SAID was it was a question to learn about someone's T-SQL skill!!! Are you brain dead!!! How many times do I have to repeat it. It was IN my FIRST post. Go read it again to ascertain what I thought the question was testing. KNOWLEDGE OF T-SQL.
February 13, 2011 at 7:57 am
Tom.Thomson (2/12/2011)
nadabadan (2/12/2011)
Craig Farrell (2/12/2011)
Nadabadan, since it's me you're aggravated with, perhaps we should discuss it further. PM me if you'd like to do it privately, or simply respond here publically. I'm fine with it either way, those whom I respect have given up on trying to salvage this situation.I'm more aggravated at the mindless horde who have decided to inject themselves into this thread. One found my post to be insulting ( I have no idea how ) and so naturally the other lemmings followed suit. They contributed nothing but drivel to this thread. Read my post to GSquared and then read your post to me. Other than you went off on a tangent, whereas I made an actual point, our posts were similar in tone and format. Your post mirrored mine. And yet, only my post was insulting? Frankly, I'm done with this thread. If people are bothered by "REALLY" or "chip on your shoulder", they need to grow up. There's a bit too much group-think and drama for such "professional" members of a SQL forum.
As I see it, Nadabadan, you demonstrated clearly many posts back that you were incapable of normal courteous debate and were not prepared to accept that anyone who disagreed with you even to the slightest extent might be at leat partially right. You were rude, offensive, and disgracefully unprofessional. You have continued this behaviour through many subsequent posts. You ignore all normal conventions of civilised discussion and display your arrogance and disgraceful disregard for the normal conventions of polite debate at every opportunity. Several people have tried politely and courteously to point out to you that your behaviour is not suitable in a professional forum, and you have taken it upon yourself to to insult each one of them in the most offensive and disgraceful manner. If any professional institute of which I am a member had the misfortune to count you as a member I would now be seriously considering whether I should ask that institute to consider whether you were a fit person to be a professional member, since the codes of ethics and professional behaviour that they require of professional members are clearly either beyond your capacity or beyond your willingness to conform to any such code.
If I'm unprofessional, you are petty.
February 13, 2011 at 8:56 am
nadabadan (2/13/2011)
When did I claim it was a question about basic knowledge of "computer theory". What I SAID was it was a question to learn about someone's T-SQL skill!!! Are you brain dead!!! How many times do I have to repeat it. It was IN my FIRST post. Go read it again to ascertain what I thought the question was testing. KNOWLEDGE OF T-SQL.
nadabadan (2/8/2011)
If you have a computer science background, I think you will have an appreciation for this question. Any basic data structures and algorithms book would have something like this.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 13, 2011 at 10:45 am
Stefan Krzywicki (2/13/2011)
nadabadan (2/13/2011)
When did I claim it was a question about basic knowledge of "computer theory". What I SAID was it was a question to learn about someone's T-SQL skill!!! Are you brain dead!!! How many times do I have to repeat it. It was IN my FIRST post. Go read it again to ascertain what I thought the question was testing. KNOWLEDGE OF T-SQL.nadabadan (2/8/2011)
If you have a computer science background, I think you will have an appreciation for this question. Any basic data structures and algorithms book would have something like this.
READ THE ORIGINAL POST THAT I WROTE.
Or how about if you want to see how much a person REALLY knows about T-SQL or want to see their thought process. I doubt these people actually use the CASE statement to find the MAX value. But forcing someone to write a solution using CASE shows whether that person has some experience in T-SQL or just some superficial knowledge of T-SQL gleaned of a book the night before the interview.
WHERE DO I MENTION COMPUTER THEORY. NOWHERE. Sure if you have a computer science background, you would appreciate it. BUT THE POINT OF THE QUESTION, was not about algorithms, but about exposing a interviewee's ability in T-SQL. Comprehende?
February 13, 2011 at 11:09 am
nadabadan (2/13/2011)
Stefan Krzywicki (2/13/2011)
nadabadan (2/13/2011)
When did I claim it was a question about basic knowledge of "computer theory". What I SAID was it was a question to learn about someone's T-SQL skill!!! Are you brain dead!!! How many times do I have to repeat it. It was IN my FIRST post. Go read it again to ascertain what I thought the question was testing. KNOWLEDGE OF T-SQL.nadabadan (2/8/2011)
If you have a computer science background, I think you will have an appreciation for this question. Any basic data structures and algorithms book would have something like this.READ THE ORIGINAL POST THAT I WROTE.
I did. Here I was answering the question "When did I claim it was a question about basic knowledge of "computer theory".
Are you now saying that everything you said after that should be ignored?
Or how about if you want to see how much a person REALLY knows about T-SQL or want to see their thought process. I doubt these people actually use the CASE statement to find the MAX value. But forcing someone to write a solution using CASE shows whether that person has some experience in T-SQL or just some superficial knowledge of T-SQL gleaned of a book the night before the interview.
WHERE DO I MENTION COMPUTER THEORY. NOWHERE. Sure if you have a computer science background, you would appreciate it. BUT THE POINT OF THE QUESTION, was not about algorithms, but about exposing a interviewee's ability in T-SQL. Comprehende?
Not in your first statement, but in a conversation people then go on to say more things and other people respond to those things, these are all considered part of the conversation. In your following statements you mention computer theory quite a bit, not in a very coherant manner, but you do mention them.
In your very next statement, you say
nadabadan (2/8/2011)
Right and if you have 10 years of experience with T-SQL, this question would have been a breeze and you would understand the REASON for the question. And since you bring up "algorithms", this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm.
That is "is a quiz about an algorithm". So which is it?
In fact, you state it again in your next comment after that.
nadabadan (2/8/2011)
But having someone implement an ALGORITHM to find the maximum value tells me that the interviewee has a good grasp of T-SQL, the underlying logic and implementation and has an ability to think.
But now you are telling me that it isn't about algorthims. Are you disagreeing with you from earlier? Have you changed your mind? Are you simply confused?
The "point" of the question was a poor one. It is a poor question. There are enough better questions that an interviewer should be embarassed for asking this one. If you want to find out if a person knows how to do interesting things with a CASE function, ask them to create a cross-tab query. Setting up odd requirements that you'd never use in the real world are trick questions far more ofen intended to show how clever the interviewer is, there are far better ways to ascertain the interviewee's understanding. If you want to see if the interviewee is going to be able to cope with the bad code left behind by someone else, give them the weird "Case function to find MAX value" that you're stuck with and ask them to fix it. Not only will this tell you if they know the right way to do it, but it'll let you know they understand SQL well enough to figure out what the convoluded statement is trying to do.
EDIT: fixed quote tags.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 13, 2011 at 1:37 pm
nadabadan (2/13/2011)
Note, our first exchange. No tangents, yet, simply a back and forth regarding the value of the question in our eyes. Now, you've begun to take offence simply because I didn't immediately agree with you, though I'll give you there was sarcasm in that last statement. So, the next exchange:
You need to go over the thread again. People have been complaining about the first exchange. Particularly, the "REALLY".
Yes, and since I didn't mention it that's obviously not my personal concern with your writing style or methods, is it?
To this:
I didn't write any of the above, so your gripe is with some other poster.
No genius, I wrote it, and said so above. You expect me to bow to your obvious wit and ability, and you can't even follow the thread you abducted. TL;DR? Well, if we're going to do that...
All I said was that having some use the CASE statement to solve the question reveals more about the interviewee than "SELECT MAX( column ) FROM table".
And, in essence, all I said was that there are better ways to get that information out of an interviewee that doesn't require using bad coding.
You may have a passion for it, but I highly doubt you have any understanding of it. I actually have some knowledge of AI and search heuristics, so I think I could find at least one more area where A* would be useful.
Note the usually in my statement. Those areas are its more common usage, along with others like it. It's also not usually taught in basic classes or books on the subject of computer science. But that would deflate your mindless droning if you actually admitted something.
All you did was awkwardly toss keywords to impress the mindless drones here, but you have convinced me that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. "Basic programming methods in sorting", "basic sorting methodologies", "speedy memory usage". Please do go on.
And with this you prove to me that you are ignorant. I hadn't realized until now just how unwilling to learn you were to attempt to better yourself. So be it.
As to the rest of your fluff, meh. Like you have so far, I'll just ignore your inane chatter that might have had a point in there that would have been common ground.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
February 13, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I did. Here I was answering the question "When did I claim it was a question about basic knowledge of "computer theory".
Are you now saying that everything you said after that should be ignored?
No you didn't. What you quoted was where I said you could APPRECIATE it if you have a background in computer science. Not that the question is ABOUT background in computer science. I said that it was ABOUT T-SQL. I was VERY specific about this. At this point, you are grasping at straws.
Not in your first statement, but in a conversation people then go on to say more things and other people respond to those things, these are all considered part of the conversation. In your following statements you mention computer theory quite a bit, not in a very coherant manner, but you do mention them.
Each RESPONSE was in relation to a specific post. You can take anything out of context if you want. You can ignore the SPECIFIC and DIRECT assertions I made and cherry-pick whatever you want.
That is "is a quiz about an algorithm". So which is it?
In fact, you state it again in your next comment after that
"quiz about algorithm"? You are quoting something I never wrote? My response was to Craig claiming that he had 10 years of experience but found the question difficult. If he had 10 years of experience, then it should've been a breeze. I was denigrating his "experience".
But now you are telling me that it isn't about algorthims. Are you disagreeing with you from earlier? Have you changed your mind? Are you simply confused?
No you are confused. All you are doing is ignoring my direct assertions and confusedly reaching flawed conclusions.
The "point" of the question was a poor one. It is a poor question. There are enough better questions that an interviewer should be embarassed for asking this one. If you want to find out if a person knows how to do interesting things with a CASE function, ask them to create a cross-tab query. Setting up odd requirements that you'd never use in the real world are trick questions far more ofen intended to show how clever the interviewer is, there are far better ways to ascertain the interviewee's understanding. If you want to see if the interviewee is going to be able to cope with the bad code left behind by someone else, give them the weird "Case function to find MAX value" that you're stuck with and ask them to fix it. Not only will this tell you if they know the right way to do it, but it'll let you know they understand SQL well enough to figure out what the convoluded statement is trying to do.
Holy shit, you are dumber than a barrel full of bricks. You are assigning an argument to me that I never made. And you are arguing AGAINST IT. I NEVER SAID THAT THE QUESTION WAS GOOD OR BAD. I don't give a shit about the question. I was just saying that there were more than 3 possibilities for why the interviewer might ask this question.
Setting up odd requirements that you'd never use in the real world are trick questions far more ofen intended to show how clever the interviewer is, there are far better ways to ascertain the interviewee's understanding.
In every interview there are questions asked that you'd never use in real world. Also, did I say there weren't better ways to ascertain the interviewee's understanding? You have an inability to stay focused. When did I say this was the best way to ascertain the interviewee's understanding? I didn't. What a moron.
February 13, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Yes, and since I didn't mention it that's obviously not my personal concern with your writing style or methods, is it?
But you CLEARLY wrote that it was insulting. However, people CLEARLY said it was.
No genius, I wrote it, and said so above. You expect me to bow to your obvious wit and ability, and you can't even follow the thread you abducted. TL;DR? Well, if we're going to do that...
I don't expect you bow to my wit and ability. But I expect you to quote things correctly and put it in perspective. You joined your arguments together from multiple posts and didn't expect what point you are trying to make.
And, in essence, all I said was that there are better ways to get that information out of an interviewee that doesn't require using bad coding.
And that has nothing to do with what I posted did it since I NEVER said it was a good or bad way to get information out of an interview. GSquared said there were 3 possibilities and I just offered an additional one. So you just went off on your own tangent, didn't you?
Note the usually in my statement. Those areas are its more common usage, along with others like it. It's also not usually taught in basic classes or books on the subject of computer science. But that would deflate your mindless droning if you actually admitted something.
What isn't taught in basic classes or books? AI or A* specific isn't even USUALLY useful to "robotics" or game engines. Morons think AI is USUALLY useful to "robotics" or game engines because it is superficially OBVIOUS. AI or A* is usually used OUTSIDE of robotics or game engines. If YOU knew anything about ANYTHING, then you'd know that. You just desperately try to sound intelligent by throwing in keywords you know nothing about because you don't have an argument to make.
And with this you prove to me that you are ignorant. I hadn't realized until now just how unwilling to learn you were to attempt to better yourself. So be it.
What? Unwilling to learn? What do you know? Nothing. 10 years of T-SQL experience and struggling with simple T-SQL question. "Basic programming methods in sorting", "basic sorting methodologies", "speedy memory usage" are an illiterate's attempt at appearing intelligent. What do you mean by "basic programming methods in sorting"? "Basic sorting methodologies" is what? Are you talking about sorting algorithms? "speedy memory usage" is what? Can you elaborate? Doubt it because it's just nonsense and gibberish. It's not that I am unwilling to learn, it's that you are talking bullshit.
February 13, 2011 at 6:11 pm
nadabadan (2/13/2011)
I did. Here I was answering the question "When did I claim it was a question about basic knowledge of "computer theory".
Are you now saying that everything you said after that should be ignored?
No you didn't. What you quoted was where I said you could APPRECIATE it if you have a background in computer science. Not that the question is ABOUT background in computer science. I said that it was ABOUT T-SQL. I was VERY specific about this. At this point, you are grasping at straws.
Yeah, I'm the one grasping at straws, you're pretty funny.
Not in your first statement, but in a conversation people then go on to say more things and other people respond to those things, these are all considered part of the conversation. In your following statements you mention computer theory quite a bit, not in a very coherant manner, but you do mention them.
Each RESPONSE was in relation to a specific post. You can take anything out of context if you want. You can ignore the SPECIFIC and DIRECT assertions I made and cherry-pick whatever you want.
Except that it isn't me "cherry-picking", it is you. You're the one that wants us to ignore everything else you said and only consider the cherry-picked statement you made.
That is "is a quiz about an algorithm". So which is it?
In fact, you state it again in your next comment after that
"quiz about algorithm"? You are quoting something I never wrote?
Nope, that is a direct quote from you in your second post on this thread. I even provided the quote just above where I said this. As I pointed out, you said it twice. Nice try at denial, but people can go read your comments for themselves.
My response was to Craig claiming that he had 10 years of experience but found the question difficult. If he had 10 years of experience, then it should've been a breeze. I was denigrating his "experience".
From what I've seen here, you're the one lacking experience and understanding. You can't even keep your own comments straight. You denegrate his experience and then state "And since you bring up "algorithms", this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm."
But now you are telling me that it isn't about algorthims. Are you disagreeing with you from earlier? Have you changed your mind? Are you simply confused?
No you are confused. All you are doing is ignoring my direct assertions and confusedly reaching flawed conclusions.
Ha! I'm quoting your direct assertions right back at you and you're the one trying to ignore them. Nice try, but I'm clearly not the confused one here.
The "point" of the question was a poor one. It is a poor question. There are enough better questions that an interviewer should be embarassed for asking this one. If you want to find out if a person knows how to do interesting things with a CASE function, ask them to create a cross-tab query. Setting up odd requirements that you'd never use in the real world are trick questions far more ofen intended to show how clever the interviewer is, there are far better ways to ascertain the interviewee's understanding. If you want to see if the interviewee is going to be able to cope with the bad code left behind by someone else, give them the weird "Case function to find MAX value" that you're stuck with and ask them to fix it. Not only will this tell you if they know the right way to do it, but it'll let you know they understand SQL well enough to figure out what the convoluded statement is trying to do.
Holy shit, you are dumber than a barrel full of bricks. You are assigning an argument to me that I never made. And you are arguing AGAINST IT. I NEVER SAID THAT THE QUESTION WAS GOOD OR BAD. I don't give a shit about the question. I was just saying that there were more than 3 possibilities for why the interviewer might ask this question.
You said you understood the reason for it and said about the question "But having someone implement an ALGORITHM to find the maximum value tells me that the interviewee has a good grasp of T-SQL, the underlying logic and implementation and has an ability to think. " You're a bald-faced liar. You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about and have been caught contradicting yourself. You can call me names all you want and I'm sure you will since that's all you've got left, but you're wrong, you're lying about what you've said, which is funny because people can just go read it, and you're incapable of admitting you're wrong.
Setting up odd requirements that you'd never use in the real world are trick questions far more ofen intended to show how clever the interviewer is, there are far better ways to ascertain the interviewee's understanding.
In every interview there are questions asked that you'd never use in real world. Also, did I say there weren't better ways to ascertain the interviewee's understanding? You have an inability to stay focused. When did I say this was the best way to ascertain the interviewee's understanding? I didn't. What a moron.
No, there really aren't. Not in interviews where the interviewer has an idea of what he or she is doing. And again with calling people stupid, enjoy your projection. It is really hilarious to me that I've provided direct quotes from you and you try to claim you never said these things. Do you think the old posts go away once someone has read them? I told you what post you said it in, I showed the direct quote and I accurately stated what you said. You deny all this, yet somehow think yourself justified in calling me a moron. You're hilarious! Absolute comedy gold!
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
February 13, 2011 at 7:40 pm
EDIT: I was going to respond again but then I realized I was answering the exact same argument for the third time. You ignore half of what I say and then mis-state the other half. I leave you to your own demise.
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
February 13, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Except that it isn't me "cherry-picking", it is you. You're the one that wants us to ignore everything else you said and only consider the cherry-picked statement you made.
No moron, you can use every statement I made, but put it into CONTEXT and stop misreading what I wrote. I specifically stated that the question was about testing T-SQL. Then I specifically said you can appreciate it if you have some CS background. You decided to change it to suit your needs. That's not my problem, it's just your inability to read, reason and formulate an argument.
Nope, that is a direct quote from you in your second post on this thread. I even provided the quote just above where I said this. As I pointed out, you said it twice. Nice try at denial, but people can go read your comments for themselves.
Yeah NICE cut and paste you efin retard. The whole QUOTE is " And since you bring up "algorithms", this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm. ". Who brought algorithms ( notice the quotes ) into the debate? Not me.
From what I've seen here, you're the one lacking experience and understanding. You can't even keep your own comments straight. You denegrate his experience and then state "And since you bring up "algorithms", this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm."
You notice algorithms in quotes? Also, not sure what you are trying to say here.
Ha! I'm quoting your direct assertions right back at you and you're the one trying to ignore them. Nice try, but I'm clearly not the confused one here.
Fine let me quote you "directly". "Nice try, but I'm clearly confused".
You said you understood the reason for it and said about the question "But having someone implement an ALGORITHM to find the maximum value tells me that the interviewee has a good grasp of T-SQL, the underlying logic and implementation and has an ability to think. " You're a bald-faced liar. You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about and have been caught contradicting yourself. You can call me names all you want and I'm sure you will since that's all you've got left, but you're wrong, you're lying about what you've said, which is funny because people can just go read it, and you're incapable of admitting you're wrong.
"But having someone implement an algorithm to find the maximum value tells me that the INTERVIEWEE HAS A GOOD GRASP OF T-SQL...". What ARE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT? Bald-faced liar? You are an efin retard. I guess you forgot to cut that part out.
No, there really aren't. Not in interviews where the interviewer has an idea of what he or she is doing. And again with calling people stupid, enjoy your projection. It is really hilarious to me that I've provided direct quotes from you and you try to claim you never said these things. Do you think the old posts go away once someone has read them? I told you what post you said it in, I showed the direct quote and I accurately stated what you said. You deny all this, yet somehow think yourself justified in calling me a moron. You're hilarious! Absolute comedy gold!
You are an absolute moron. Have you ever been asked by someone to write a code without using standard library? Like an interviewer asking you to implement a linked link? Or how about logic questions? Every question you've ever had were specific question about best practices?
I am done arguing with you. You are a worthless waste of time.
February 13, 2011 at 8:05 pm
Craig Farrell (2/13/2011)
EDIT: I was going to respond again but then I realized I was answering the exact same argument for the third time. You ignore half of what I say and then mis-state the other half. I leave you to your own demise.
Talk about projecting. That's what you do, that's what you've done since your first post. Attributing arguments to me that I never made. Then arguing against them. We can agree on one thing, this thread is done. I'm done with your nonsense.
February 13, 2011 at 8:24 pm
nadabadan (2/13/2011)
Except that it isn't me "cherry-picking", it is you. You're the one that wants us to ignore everything else you said and only consider the cherry-picked statement you made.
No moron, you can use every statement I made, but put it into CONTEXT and stop misreading what I wrote. I specifically stated that the question was about testing T-SQL. Then I specifically said you can appreciate it if you have some CS background. You decided to change it to suit your needs. That's not my problem, it's just your inability to read, reason and formulate an argument.
Ha! Good one! I didn't change anything, but you pretend I did, funny!
Nope, that is a direct quote from you in your second post on this thread. I even provided the quote just above where I said this. As I pointed out, you said it twice. Nice try at denial, but people can go read your comments for themselves.
Yeah NICE cut and paste you efin retard. The whole QUOTE is " And since you bring up "algorithms", this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm. ". Who brought algorithms ( notice the quotes ) into the debate? Not me.
Who brought it up doesn't make any difference at all. You stated this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm. You stated it because he brought it up, but that doesn't change your statement at all. The funniest part is that I did use your whole quote. Heck, I quoted more of it than you just did! Again, comedy gold!
From what I've seen here, you're the one lacking experience and understanding. You can't even keep your own comments straight. You denegrate his experience and then state "And since you bring up "algorithms", this CASE question is a quiz about an algorithm."
You notice algorithms in quotes? Also, not sure what you are trying to say here.
Yep, I see it. You not being sure what someone is trying to say is par for the course. Algorithms is in quotes the first time, but not when you plainly state the question is a quiz about an algorithm.
Ha! I'm quoting your direct assertions right back at you and you're the one trying to ignore them. Nice try, but I'm clearly not the confused one here.
Fine let me quote you "directly". "Nice try, but I'm clearly confused".
Again, funny as hell. That's not a direct quote and you know it. You argue like a disgruntled pre-teen. I'm looking forward to when you break out gems like "so's your face!"
You said you understood the reason for it and said about the question "But having someone implement an ALGORITHM to find the maximum value tells me that the interviewee has a good grasp of T-SQL, the underlying logic and implementation and has an ability to think. " You're a bald-faced liar. You clearly have NO idea what you're talking about and have been caught contradicting yourself. You can call me names all you want and I'm sure you will since that's all you've got left, but you're wrong, you're lying about what you've said, which is funny because people can just go read it, and you're incapable of admitting you're wrong.
"But having someone implement an algorithm to find the maximum value tells me that the INTERVIEWEE HAS A GOOD GRASP OF T-SQL...". What ARE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT? Bald-faced liar? You are an efin retard. I guess you forgot to cut that part out.
I didn't forget to cut that part out, that part is the part that shows you have no idea what you're talking about, why would I cut that out? You're a liar because you try to pretend you didn't say things you clearly said, not realizing somehow that we can just go back and read it.
No, there really aren't. Not in interviews where the interviewer has an idea of what he or she is doing. And again with calling people stupid, enjoy your projection. It is really hilarious to me that I've provided direct quotes from you and you try to claim you never said these things. Do you think the old posts go away once someone has read them? I told you what post you said it in, I showed the direct quote and I accurately stated what you said. You deny all this, yet somehow think yourself justified in calling me a moron. You're hilarious! Absolute comedy gold!
You are an absolute moron. Have you ever been asked by someone to write a code without using standard library? Like an interviewer asking you to implement a linked link? Or how about logic questions? Every question you've ever had were specific question about best practices?
Nope, every question has not been specific questions about best practices and if you think that's the only real-world coding you've clearly never done any. The questions I get asked are along the lines of "How would you accomplish X" or "How have you handled this situation in the past." That's what matters, not if you can out-clever the interviewer.
I am done arguing with you. You are a worthless waste of time.
Hooray! You flounced! That's so cute! I hope you have fun with your wastes of time that aren't worthless.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 76 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply