I.e. Learning math is not a pre-requisite, it's a byproduct.
You don't need to know math to program, but as you become a better programmer, you _want_ to tackle more challenging problems - some of which inevitably involve math (and knowledge in general) that you aren't familiar with. To solve these problems, you have to learn as you go and that, as others have noted, is the real hallmark of a good programmer.
Are there examples of large(ish) projects or production websites using primarily CoffeeScript?
It seems like CS has a fanbase among purists who enjoy the syntactic elegance. But in more pragmatic environments the extra pain in the develop-debug lifecycle would seem to be a showstopper. I just wonder how many developers end up voting with their feet when confronted with that choice in the real world.
P.S. Another argument against that wasn't mentioned: CoffeeScript represents an additional barrier to entry for opensource projects. Shipping compiled JS code is not unlike shipping a compiled binary... and if you want people to participate and contribute, requiring CS knowledge is an extra hurdle that most JS devs will shy away from.
You read the article wrong. The comedian represents the entrepreneur.
"Watching the joke, you can see Norm adjust based on what is resonating with the audience (you know, like moth names). You can't figure out what matters and course-correct if you rush through your pitch as a monologue"
You're right. After going back and re-reading, that's what the author of the article is saying. So now I simply think he's got a really bad example, and is drawing the wrong lesson.
There are several lessons to learn, and to my way of thinking, it's all completely screwed, and I've learned something else.
I'll just chime in and say I quite like your reading of it and think it's a great point.
Regarding my intent: that video is the example to zoom in on the uncomfortable feeling of allowing someone to misunderstand you while you get to where you're going (which in the comedian's case is the punchline, the entrepreneur's case is better customer understanding).
Good point... a Node MQ project formerly based on msgpack recently switched to JSON and increased its performance by almost 200%: https://github.com/aikar/wormhole/issues/3
I've done several of my own benchmarks as well and can confirm that the current Node JSON implementation is much faster than MessagePack. Their benchmarks are most likely quite old.
That mostly speaks to the quality of node's MessagePack implementation, nothing more. Benchmarking data format serialization is hard, because one poor implementation throws things off.
There are benefits to MessagePack that have already been mentioned here, namely not having to base64 binary data first (smaller size), but that's true for any binary message format. I'd love to see some other binary formats thrown into the ring and see how they compare to MessagePack in both size efficiency and encode/decode performance. BSON seems like an interesting option, but I don't know enough about it to comment...
True, but, optimization is tricky, and you can say the say thing about ruby's messagepack and JSON libraries, where the speed difference is reversed. I, unfortunately don't have the time to go digging as to why, but there's a discrepancy somewhere.
One problem with telling someone why you didn't hire them is that most (yes, most) people will disagree with you. "No, you're wrong I really do know [skill X], and have experience with [technology Y]". (Uhm, no you don't, otherwise I'd have hired you). Or, "but I gave you a good answer!" (wrong again.) At best these are dead-end arguments that leave both parties frustrated. At worst you end up in a courtroom, as others have mentioned.
So, you want to know what you did wrong? Maybe it's that you didn't develop a good enough rapport with your interviewer to show you knew how to listen to them and "take a hint". Next time, be sure to checkin with the person you're talking to by asking things like, "does that answer your question", and "do you want me to go into more detail".
And it's great that you're looking for feedback, but why are you whining about not getting it after the fact when you could just ask for it in the interview? When an interviewer asks you a question, do your best to answer it and if you're not sure how you've done, just frickin' ask! "What do you think? Is that a good solution", or, "That's how I'd tackle it. What would you do?" Demonstrate that you know where your weaknesses are and that you have genuine interest in improving your skillset/knowledge/whatever.
One of the most important qualities I look for in people I work with is self-awareness of how they're perceived. People who lack this are a pain in the ass to manage. In the extreme, they're self-entitled primadonnas who are impossible to give feedback to. But even in moderation, this is problematic. Yes, I know you don't think copy/pasting code is all that bad, or that you're l33t-speak documentation is readable enough... but it's not. Don't make me argue with you about it.
That is exactly what's being claimed. The queries were not made on bing.com, they were made on google.com. The only way Bing can become aware of the results of these google.com queries is if they're "spying" on the user's activity via the Bing Toolbar and IE8 suggested search features.
"We gave 20 of our engineers laptops with a fresh install of Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer 8 with Bing Toolbar installed. As part of the install process, we opted in to the “Suggested Sites” feature of IE8, and we accepted the default options for the Bing Toolbar.
We asked these engineers to enter the synthetic queries into the search box on the Google home page, and click on the results, i.e., the results we inserted. We were surprised that within a couple weeks of starting this experiment, our inserted results started appearing in Bing. Below is an example: a search for [hiybbprqag] on Bing returned a page about seating at a theater in Los Angeles. As far as we know, the only connection between the query and result is Google’s result page (shown above)."
Interesting. Just went and looked and was surprised to find that only one company is valued more than Apple in the US markets. Exxon Mobil (382B) > Apple (307B).
I interpreted this graph to mean broofa was implying that Facebook in the long run could achieve that kind of valuation, not that there were other companies with that valuation now.
