broofa

Ignore that. Apparently I don't know my own code. It just looks at `dependencies`. :-p

That said, it looks like the latest (not yet npm-published?) version of zero has moved all the dependencies to `devDependencies`.

It's worth noting that (for now) npm.broofa.com includes `devDependencies` in it's graph. Zero doesn't have any production `dependencies`.

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"

Citation needed, especially since the node-msgpack library docs say it's anywhere from 1.2-3X faster. https://github.com/pgriess/node-msgpack

Why is this making the front page of hacker news? This article is 2.5 years old.

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.

From http://goo.gl/Bi0JH (Google blog):

"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)."

And the counter part to that, "Work? Already sold my company, suckers!"

Value

^_____________________●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

|____________●●●●●●●●●

|_________●●● <---- Apple

|_______●●

|______●

|_____●

|____●

|____●

|___●

|___●

|___● <---------- Facebook

|__●

+----------------------------> Time

Testing DOM performance is a very different beast from testing JS engine performance.

For example, DOM-based tests are useless when trying to compare Node.js performance against other JS engines.

'Have had "." in my $PATH for 20 years. It's never been a problem... and probably saved me several hundred thousand keystrokes.

Having to worry about there being an "ls" in the current dir is about the same as worrying whether or not there are multiple versions of _any_ binary elsewhere in $PATH.

This is a non-issue.

@blantoni: You can find Facebook data center cost data here: http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2010/09/16/faceb...

You'd have to 10X those costs (to $500M/yr), plus assume a 250% overhead (another $500M) on top of your $200M salary and benefits figure for Facebook to be in the red.

Calling that plausible would seem a bit of a stretch.

Your reaction says lot more about your attitude than it does about the OP's. I found the article interesting and informative, with none of the passive/aggressive overtunes you mention.

Your lip service about finding diamonds in the rough and catering to candidates who are nervous or can't think on their feet leads to just one comment: "Put up or shut up."

The OP has given us a very good, concrete example of his interview process, the traits it reveals in candidates, and how he tailors it to meet individual candidate reactions. Until you do the same your comment here is nothing but five paragraphs of whining about how some people don't interview well.

To which I reply, "Duh."

We all know the 45-60 minute interview is imperfect, and that both interviewer and candidate are just trying to make the best of a very contrived interaction to begin with. So, please, lose the attitude and give us something we can learn from rather than bashing the OP with vague generalities.