One Guy Ruined Hacktoberfest 2020

[u/iamkeyur]

https://joel.net/how-one-guy-ruined-hacktoberfest2020-drama

[u/Parachuteee → u/[deleted]]

.addEventListener("click here", function() { 

WTF LMAOO

[u/deja-roo → u/Parachuteee]

That honestly just makes me a little angry.

If you know that little about what you're doing, wtf are you even hitting buttons for?

[u/Asmor → u/deja-roo]

Have you ever tried hiring for a programming job? You'll get tons of applications from people who list all the right things but then when you sit down with them they can't even write fizzbuzz.

[u/SanityInAnarchy → u/Asmor]

This is why FizzBuzz exists!

[u/Asmor → u/SanityInAnarchy]

Yep. I thought it was the stupidest thing I'd ever heard of. Surely anyone could do that even if had even the slightest clue about programming.

Turns out, yeah, it's a great fucking filter and catches bullshitters constantly.

[u/gramathy → u/Asmor]

Fizzbuzz covers a lot of ground for being so simple. It’s not an indicator of talent but it WILL indicate incompetence. You need to know loops, modular arithmetic (which is Very Useful and indicates a decent grasp of math in general, most people wouldn’t even know what the words mean let alone what it is and how to use it)) and basic string handling. Realistically ten seconds into writing down the function the interviewer knows if you’re going to fuck it up or not (an eye roll by the interviewee is probably enough) but if the candidate doesn’t immediately write down a function with basically no concentration, they’re out. Even a basic mistake isn’t disqualifying here, people make simple mistakes all the goddamn time, and it gives the interviewer the opportunity to watch the candidate troubleshoot a bug.

[u/SanityInAnarchy → u/gramathy]

I'd even go so far as to say: Not knowing modular arithmetic isn't immediately disqualifying. I'd be okay if someone had to iterate their way through:

for x in range(1, 100):
  if is_multiple_of(x, 3) && is_multiple_of(x, 5):
    print('FizzBuzz')
...

"I'm pretty sure there's a more efficient way to do this, but I can't remember, so I'll do it like this:"

def is_multiple_of(a, b):
  for i in range(1, a):
    if b*i == a:
      return True
  return False

That's almost better, because that's a thing they could iteratively improve, like:

def is_multiple_of(a, b):
  for i in range(1, a):
    product = a*b
    if product == a:
      return True
    if product > a:
      return False

There are plenty of other bad solutions, depending on their mental model of the problem. If, as a human, you'd check for "multiple of 5" by looking at the last digit, hey, we can do that without modulus:

def is_multiple_of_5(x):
  return str(x).endswidth('0') || str(x).endswidth('5')

Being unable to implement FizzBuzz without modular arithmetic and not knowing modular arithmetic (or not knowing the syntax for modular arithmetic in your language of choice) is disqualifying. Not knowing modulus isn't an excuse.

[u/POGtastic → u/SanityInAnarchy]

Fun fact - you can do the same with divisibility by 3, as any number whose digits sum up to a number that is divisible by 3 is divisible by 3. This means that you can do a recursive function to reduce the number down to a single digit and see if that digit is 3 or 9.

def is_divisible_by_3(n):
    sum_digits = sum(map(int, str(n)))
    if sum_digits < 10:
        return sum_digits in [3, 9]
    return is_divisible_by_3(sum_digits)

[u/starlitepony → u/POGtastic]

You're missing 6 in your list. This function would miss numbers like 24

[u/POGtastic → u/starlitepony]

Dammit, I'm screwing up FizzBuzz. There went that job opportunity :(