i need some C/C++ test intervie questions - Page 2

pete wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
Joona I Palaste wrote:
> Richard Heathfield scribbled the following:
>> Why? It's obvious what he's doing,
>> so you can out-psych him easily. "If
>> Dennis Ritchie scores a 10, then I have to rank at 1, since I think
>> Dennis Ritchie is easily ten times as knowledgeable
>> about C as I am. On
>> the other hand, I do know what C is.
>> Now, let's get on with the test and
>> find out how good /you/ think I am."
>
> Whoever said the scale was linear?

Whoever said it wasn't? IMHO it's a fair
assumption that it's linear, in the
absence of information to the contrary.

Some information to the contrary is there,
unles you consider Dennis Ritchie to be only about about
ten times more knowledgable than "What's C?"

Or, the other way round:
If the scale was meant to be linear, it should start off at 0, because
otherwise someone answering "What's C?" would gain 0.1 ritchies - and
IMHO that's far too much.

--
Sig. Sic.

Nov 13 '05 #53

Jeremy Collins wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote:
Bill Reed wrote:
Randy Howard wrote:
>
>You're right. "Who is Dennis Ritchie?"

Didn't he have something to do with the Commodores?

No; you're thinking of Bill Haley.

Bill Haley was a C programmer?

It was originally "Bill Haley and the Comments" I suppose, and
their name got mangled somewhere along the way...

Ah, so it's "Rock Around The C-lock", right?

--
Sig. Sic.

Nov 13 '05 #54

Xenos

I don't know what that means. I just hit reply...

"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <ir*****@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:ri********************************@4ax.com...

Dr.X aka "Xenos" <do**********@spamhate.com> wrote in
<bj*********@cui1.lmms.lmco.com>:
Sorry: change "cast operator" to "sizeof and cast operators."

OK. But please stop top-posting. Thank you.
--
Rain is just liquid sunshine.

Nov 13 '05 #55

Morris Dovey

Jeremy Collins wrote:

It was originally "Bill Haley and the Comments" I suppose, and
their name got mangled somewhere along the way...

Didn't he write the <something><something> C Boogie?
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c

Nov 13 '05 #56

Xenos

Well, its been my experience that the best companies to work for are ones
that are willing to take the time to actually interview you. Ask you
questions; talk about past assignments, projects, etc. The ones that
instead choose to herd you into a room with a dozen other nameless
applicants will probably treat you as such: a nameless drone.

And I can tell you from experience that I loved working for the companies I
accepted offers from a lot more than friends and colleagues that accepted
offers from test-givers.

I never found regurgitate knowledge proof of anything. I knew several
skilled test-takers back in my college days that weren't very good at the
actual application of that knowledge.

Of course that's just my opinion formed from antidotal evidence.

DrX.

"Richard Heathfield" <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:bj**********@hercules.btinternet.com...

Xenos wrote:
Personally, in my job hunting days, I walked out on an interviewer that
presumed to give me a test. I find the practice insulting.

That's entirely your privilege, of course. In my own experience, the best
programmers are only too willing to demonstrate their knowledge, and are
not offended or insulted when asked so to do. The only difficulty with C
tests is that of finding an opportunity to demonstrate to the "examiner"
that your answers are correct; not all people who set C tests are quite as
familiar with C as they perhaps should be.

I would not grant an interview to someone unwilling to take a test.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Nov 13 '05 #57

Arthur J. O'Dwyer

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Xenos wrote:

[re: top-posting]

I don't know what that means. I just hit reply...

Here's a modern classic of Usenet prose for you,
originally posted in comp.lang.c by Chris Torek.

---------

Right.

:So that's why you say not to top-post!

::It is helpful to say, in effect, "you said X; my answer is Y."
::If you edit the message to which you are replying to quote just
::the "X" part, then give your answer "Y", everything is pretty
::clear even if earlier versions are missing. Your own article
::will stand by itself. This convention has been developed over
::more than two decades, and it works well; longtime USENET readers
::seem to prefer it on average.

:::Can you put it all together for me now?

::::There are a few problems with this theory. USENET messages have
::::a tendency to get lost or mangled or even simply forgotten, so in
::::fact, one often *does* have to page down to read the entire quoted
::::text, then page back up to find the reply. Moreover, if the
::::quoted text is long -- as it often is -- it can be difficult even
::::to tell which part you MEANT to reply to.

:::::What's so bad about that? Especially since you can stop reading
:::::as soon as you have seen the part you already saw!

::::::Since top-posters only have to write their reply, then include
::::::the original message, they tend not to edit down the original
::::::message.

:::::::Well, I have an answer to that, but OK: what is the second?

::::::::It makes conversations come out upside down. The TV game
::::::::show "Jeopardy" is one of the few places the answer should
::::::::appear before the question.

:::::::::What is the first?

::::::::::I can give you two reasons.

:::::::::::Why is this bad?

::::::::::::This is the practice of writing your reply, then
::::::::::::including the original message below (often the whole
::::::::::::thing, instead of just the part you are replying to).

:::::::::::::What do you mean "top-post"?

::::::::::::::Please do not "top-post".

Nov 13 '05 #58

"Xenos" <do**********@spamhate.com> wrote in
<bj*********@cui1.lmms.lmco.com>:
<about top-posting>

I don't know what that means. I just hit reply...

This is:
------------------------------------------------
Your reply is on top of the text you respond to.
Why is it called top-posting?
This is!
What's top-posting?
Answer...!
Question...?
------------------------------------------------
<SNIP>
Irrwahn
--
Sig. Sic.

Nov 13 '05 #59

Morris Dovey <mr*****@iedu.com> wrote in
<DF*****************@news.uswest.net>:

Jeremy Collins wrote:
It was originally "Bill Haley and the Comments" I suppose, and
their name got mangled somewhere along the way...

Didn't he write the <something><something> C Boogie?

BTW: Does anyone know who wrote "C You Later, Alligator" ?

--
Sig. Sic.

Nov 13 '05 #60

Bill Reed

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 17:47:06 +0200, Irrwahn Grausewitz
<ir*****@freenet.de> wrote:

Morris Dovey <mr*****@iedu.com> wrote in
<DF*****************@news.uswest.net>:
Jeremy Collins wrote:
It was originally "Bill Haley and the Comments" I suppose, and
their name got mangled somewhere along the way...

Didn't he write the <something><something> C Boogie?

BTW: Does anyone know who wrote "C You Later, Alligator" ?

I'm not sure, but the Honeydrippers did "C of Love" and there was a
movie by the same title co-starring John Goodman (of King Ralph fame)
who I have always thought should get the starring role in the next
Bill Haley biographical film.

Nov 13 '05 #61

Bill Reed wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Jeremy Collins wrote:

It was originally "Bill Haley and the Comments" I suppose, and
their name got mangled somewhere along the way...

Didn't he write the <something><something> C Boogie?

BTW: Does anyone know who wrote "C You Later, Alligator" ?

I'm not sure, but the Honeydrippers did "C of Love" and there was a
movie by the same title co-starring John Goodman (of King Ralph fame)
who I have always thought should get the starring role in the next
Bill Haley biographical film.

Hm, how would John Goodman rate on the famous 1 to 10 scale of C
knowlegde?

Talking about music, I've searched my Beatles collection and found:

Tell Me What You C
I've Just C'n A Face
You Won't C Me
C Of Time
C Of Holes
C Of Monsters

Hm, "Monsters Of C" sounds better to me ...

--
Sig. Sic.

Nov 13 '05 #62

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 01:44:54 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

So I suppose the right answer is that the question is broken, or at least
provides insufficient information to give a meaningful answer. In this
case, however, the right answer is unlikely to get you hired unless the
interviewer is very clueful.

I repeat: this is not a pass/fail exam, and not meant to be scientific.
It is meant mostly as a bullshit detector for people who claim skills they
don't have. When I'm hiring a C programmer, I know about what level of
expertise I'm looking for, and my test includes questions about other than
just C programming.

As far as the scale goes, I've always assumed it's asymptotic rather than
either linear or log. I suppose "What's C" should be zero, but who really
cares? And as far as how people rate themselves, I look for a major
disparity between how they rate themselves and how they perform on the
rest of the test.

While I do not want to make the test public, I will send a copy to anybody
who asks. The answer sheet will cost you, though. 8o)
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Nov 13 '05 #63

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:56:25 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Though sometimes interviewers are looking for self-confidence, which means
that the higher someone rate himself the better.
I think it's quite rare for those who interview me for C-based roles to come
away from the ordeal worrying about my diffidence.
If faced with a
psychological test of this nature than you should always rate yourself as
well as it is possible to defend.

The last eight words are critical. If somebody rates themselves as a ten,
I'd expect them to answer every one of the questions correctly, even the
"trick" question. If somebody rates themselves as a 9, I would expect
them only to miss the few tricky questions that don't really reflect C
expertise (so much as they reflect reading this group).

Nowadays, it's quite rare, at interview, to come across a C test that I
can't punch a few holes in.
I think you'd have a hard time doing that with mine. Most of the
questions that have a "right" answer were 'borrowed' from this group or
the FAQ. Punching a hole in any of my questions gets you an automatic
acknowledgement that your C skills are stringer than mine. I consider
that unlikely in a candidate; the old hats in this group are excepted, but
I doubt I'd be interviewing any of you, and if I were, it wouldn't include
the test. More along the lines of "You can't do any better than here?".

But of
course I would resist that temptation, on courtesy grounds.

High marks right there. 8o)

--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Nov 13 '05 #64

Kevin D. Quitt <KQ****@IEEInc.com> writes:

If faced with a psychological test of this nature than you should
always rate yourself as well as it is possible to defend.

The last eight words are critical. If somebody rates themselves as a ten,
I'd expect them to answer every one of the questions correctly, even the
"trick" question.

Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

Martin

Nov 13 '05 #65

Ben Pfaff

Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:

Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this? I know that
I fairly often refer to it myself while programming and have even
cited bits of it in debates at the office (VMware at the moment,
Stanford later this month).
--
"The fact that there is a holy war doesn't mean that one of the sides
doesn't suck - usually both do..."
--Alexander Viro

Nov 13 '05 #66

Dave Vandervies

In article <87************@pfaff.stanford.edu>,
Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:
Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this? I know that
I fairly often refer to it myself while programming and have even
cited bits of it in debates at the office (VMware at the moment,
Stanford later this month).

I've often done so, for reasons ranging from "support for my claims
about some obscure language construct that somebody is trying to tell me
(works|doesn't work)" to "no harder than checking the man page to make
sure I have the argument order right"
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca

I don't know if I'm being pedantic here or just being silly.
--Joona I Palaste in comp.lang.c

Nov 13 '05 #67

Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.edu> writes:

Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:
Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this?

I don't know about other people, but I refer to standards (or RFCs, or
whatever is applicable to the given situation) quite regularly.

Martin

Nov 13 '05 #68

Bill Reed

On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:09:49 +0200, Irrwahn Grausewitz
<ir*****@freenet.de> wrote:

Bill Reed wrote:
Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
Morris Dovey wrote:
Jeremy Collins wrote:

> It was originally "Bill Haley and the Comments" I suppose, and
> their name got mangled somewhere along the way...

Didn't he write the <something><something> C Boogie?

BTW: Does anyone know who wrote "C You Later, Alligator" ?

I'm not sure, but the Honeydrippers did "C of Love" and there was a
movie by the same title co-starring John Goodman (of King Ralph fame)
who I have always thought should get the starring role in the next
Bill Haley biographical film.

Hm, how would John Goodman rate on the famous 1 to 10 scale of C
knowlegde?

Talking about music, I've searched my Beatles collection and found:

Tell Me What You C
I've Just C'n A Face
You Won't C Me
C Of Time
C Of Holes
C Of Monsters

Hm, "Monsters Of C" sounds better to me ...

I'm beginning to think this thread is no longer Cworthy.

Nov 13 '05 #69

Have you ever been on the hiring end? Put out an ad for a C programmer
and you'll get a foot-thick stack of resumes, perhaps 5% of which are
actually people with C skills (although 50% will claim C skills).
headhunters can cut the stack down a bit, but I'm still left with weeding
out those who only claim to have C skills. Hence the "test".

A significant percentage of applicants through agencies will bow out
because they're embarrassed by how they do on the test (again - I send it
to them before the interview), or for personal reasons. Does this latter
mean that I might lose somebody I'd otherwise want? Possibly, but I have
to balance that against how much interview time I save.

If you claim a reasonable level of C expertise and get more than half the
questions right (or maybe get them wrong for interesting reasons), I'll be
talking to you.

I make this sound like I'm hiring people all the time. I'm not. It's a
rare occurrence and something I dread.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Nov 13 '05 #70

goose

Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<hr********************************@4ax.com>. ..

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:01:20 -0400, "Xenos" <do**********@spamhate.com>
wrote in comp.lang.c:

[snip]

I guess I understand you wanting to gauge what they REALLY know (we seem to
have a lot of "know-it-alls" in this field who don't. Why is that?).

Can you name a field that doesn't?

marketing!
since all they ever seem to do is booze up with the clients at the
companys expense at various golf clubs ...

goose,
i'm in the wrong field :-)

Nov 13 '05 #71

goose

Jeremy Collins <jd********@ntlworld-not.com> wrote in message news:<RQ****************@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
As an occasional interviewer, I find I have to give a test. The first
question asks the applicant to rate their knowledge of C from 1 to 10,
where 1 is "What's C?" and 10 is "I'm Dennis Ritchie". I use this to set
my expectation of the results from the rest of the test.

What if the reply is "Who?" ?

<g>

the appropriate response is, of course, a rather loud and hearty
"Next!"

goose,
next !!!

Nov 13 '05 #72

goose

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:<bj**********@hercules.btinternet.com>...

Xenos wrote:
Personally, in my job hunting days, I walked out on an interviewer that
presumed to give me a test. I find the practice insulting.
That's entirely your privilege, of course. In my own experience, the best
programmers are only too willing to demonstrate their knowledge, and are
not offended or insulted when asked so to do. The only difficulty with C
tests is that of finding an opportunity to demonstrate to the "examiner"
that your answers are correct; not all people who set C tests are quite as
familiar with C as they perhaps should be.

The problem i've had is that /any/ company that says "here, write this
test" has the test set by their best in-house programmers. of course,
that in itself is not a problem, the problem arises when these "best"
programmers aren't. I've recently (bout a year) wrote a test with 20
questions, of which 20 violated some bit or blob of the C standard.

I did, of course, not even consider hearing an offer from the company,
especially when I pointed out the errors in every single question and
the star developers response was a smug "no, it works like that, thats
how C works, when you get more experience you'll understand" ...

I'd rather not work under anyone with /that/ attitude.
I would not grant an interview to someone unwilling to take a test.

neither would I. although i *do* take non-IP code into an interview with
me, and also tell the interview panel that i can be available for any
test that they care to set.

very few take me up on the offer though (wonder why?) and very few want to
look at the code I bring in. these companies I generally ignore.

goose,
still on the prowl

Nov 13 '05 #73

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 01:44:54 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
So I suppose the right answer is that the question is broken, or at least
provides insufficient information to give a meaningful answer. In this
case, however, the right answer is unlikely to get you hired unless the
interviewer is very clueful.
I repeat: this is not a pass/fail exam, and not meant to be scientific.
It is meant mostly as a bullshit detector for people who claim skills they
don't have.

Oh, absolutely. But does it correctly detect the opposite case, where people
have skills that they modestly understate? Your answer is of considerable
interest to shrinking violets the world over.
When I'm hiring a C programmer, I know about what level of
expertise I'm looking for, and my test includes questions about other than
just C programming.
Naturally.

As far as the scale goes, I've always assumed it's asymptotic rather than
either linear or log. I suppose "What's C" should be zero, but who really
cares? And as far as how people rate themselves, I look for a major
disparity between how they rate themselves and how they perform on the
rest of the test.
I would look upon a negative (self-deprecating) disparity far more
favourably than a positive (self-aggrandising) disparity.
While I do not want to make the test public, I will send a copy to anybody
who asks. The answer sheet will cost you, though. 8o)

Thanks. The addr in my sig block works fine. Don't worry about the answer
sheet. I'll write my own. :-)
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Nov 13 '05 #74

Ben Pfaff wrote:

Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:
Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.
Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this?

Consult the standard during programming? Frequently. (And, if it isn't
immediately to hand, K&R2 generally fills the gap adequately, if not
perfectly. Unfortunately, I don't have a final copy of C89 or C90; so, if
there is a difference between C89 draft and C99 final, I might have to do
some actual thinking.)

Consult the standard during interviews? Never (at least, it hasn't happened
yet.)
I know that
I fairly often refer to it myself while programming and have even
cited bits of it in debates at the office (VMware at the moment,
Stanford later this month).

Consult the standard during office debates? Well, it's rare. The usual
reaction to "let me just show you the bit..." is "Rich! Rich! We
***believe*** you, okay?!?!?!?!?!"

Anyone would think they didn't like reading technical documents. Odd, that.

[A one-off public service announcement - i.e. spam, I guess - follows, in my
sig block, where the only rule it breaks is the four-line rule.]

--
Richard Heathfield : clc9899 at rjgh dot co dot uk
Warning: unconstitutionally oversized sigblock follows.
Anyone who has got this far in this thread is probably clinically obsessed
with C and has interviews on the brain right now. If you qualify(!), and
are a comp.lang.c regular (trolls need not respond), and happen to be
desperate for a job and happen to be within driving distance of the
Richmond-upon-Thames area and happen to have a significant amount of
experience in embedded systems, please drop me an email. Don't send me your
CV! (At least, not yet.) Please use the address clc9899 at rjgh dot co dot
uk for your reply. Thanks.

Nov 13 '05 #75

Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:

Talking about music, I've searched my Beatles collection and found:

Tell Me What You C
I've Just C'n A Face
You Won't C Me
C Of Time
C Of Holes
C Of Monsters

http://plig.org/things/beatles.html

One entry begins:

When I find my code in tons of trouble,
Friends and colleagues come to me,
Speaking words of wisdom:
"Write in C."

As the deadline fast approaches,
And bugs are all that I can see,
Somewhere, someone whispers:
"Write in C."

....and continues in much the same vein for another few verses.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Nov 13 '05 #76

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499

On 9/4/2003 2:30 PM, Richard Heathfield:

Ben Pfaff wrote:
Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:
Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this?

Consult the standard during programming? Frequently.

I would argue that in 99% of the cases, this should sound an alarm. To
me, this would mean one of two things: programmer who does so either
does not know C, or uses obscure constructs. Both of these are probably
not too great. First point, for obvious reasons, and second point, since
there is a great chance that a person reading the code would have to
consult the standard to figure out what was meant by this obscure
construct (for example, its the same argument as is used for using
parentheses more often then not: if you dont remember precedence rules,
chances are neither will the next guy; place some parantheses to save
him/her some time).

That said, I dont advocate remembering function arguments and every
function in a standard library (although one should probably know what's
available)... but you neither do you need a standard to check for those.

..... or did I misunderstand ?

denis

Nov 13 '05 #77

Ben Pfaff

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Ben Pfaff wrote:
I know that
I fairly often refer to it myself while programming and have even
cited bits of it in debates at the office (VMware at the moment,
Stanford later this month).

Consult the standard during office debates? Well, it's rare. The usual
reaction to "let me just show you the bit..." is "Rich! Rich! We
***believe*** you, okay?!?!?!?!?!"

Yeah, I just haven't been here at VMware very long yet, and these
debates usually happen on email anyway.

Nov 13 '05 #78

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499

On 9/4/2003 12:43 PM, Kevin D. Quitt:

A significant percentage of applicants through agencies will bow out
because they're embarrassed by how they do on the test (again - I send it
to them before the interview), or for personal reasons. Does this latter
mean that I might lose somebody I'd otherwise want? Possibly, but I have
to balance that against how much interview time I save.

I started reading this book: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1D922DC5
"How Would You Move Mount Fuji? Microsoft's Cult of the Puzzle - How the
World's Smartest Company Selects the Most Creative Thinkers"

It discusses brainteasers in interviews (in our case, "C brainteasers"
to some extent), and quotes someone @microsoft as making a good point to
the same effect you mention, Kevin. The point being that with a large
pool of applicants, you are much more concerned whether you can get only
good people, then you are concerned with the fact that you will falsely
discard many knowledgeable applicants. This seems to make sense: if you
still have a large pool after the initial coarse selection, why not do
it? This philosophy sucks from the position of an interview-taker, but a
person who is interviewing should be delighted :)

denis

Nov 13 '05 #79

Richard Heathfield wrote:

http://plig.org/things/beatles.html

Had a look. ROFL!

<SNIP>

I've got a last one: Nick Cave And The Bad Cs - "The Mercy C"
--
Sig. Sic.

Nov 13 '05 #80

Matt Gregory

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:37:40 -0400, "Xenos" <do**********@spamhate.com>
wrote:

Personally, in my job hunting days, I walked out on an interviewer that
presumed to give me a test. I find the practice insulting.

As an occasional interviewer, I find I have to give a test. The first
question asks the applicant to rate their knowledge of C from 1 to 10,
where 1 is "What's C?" and 10 is "I'm Dennis Ritchie". I use this to set
my expectation of the results from the rest of the test.

The test isn't pass/fail - it's for me to get a handle on the person's
knowledge and familiarity with C. Somebody who claims to be an expert but
misses some fairly obvious questions is rated lower than somebody who
rates themselves as middling and answer the same questions the same way.

Hmmm, how do I rate myself? I would have to rate myself a 10 because
I can't think of anything offhand that I don't know about C. If I did
find something I didn't know, my rating would drop to at least 9, and
I would go look it up so then I would know it, restoring my personal
rating of 10.

Nov 13 '05 #81

Bill Reed

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:34:18 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Irrwahn Grausewitz wrote:
Talking about music, I've searched my Beatles collection and found:

Tell Me What You C
I've Just C'n A Face
You Won't C Me
C Of Time
C Of Holes
C Of Monsters

http://plig.org/things/beatles.html

One entry begins:

When I find my code in tons of trouble,
Friends and colleagues come to me,
Speaking words of wisdom:
"Write in C."

As the deadline fast approaches,
And bugs are all that I can see,
Somewhere, someone whispers:
"Write in C."

...and continues in much the same vein for another few verses.

A true classic. Very moving rendition. If we were at a piano bar and
you had a tip jar I'd leave you a C note.

Nov 13 '05 #82

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499 <ki****@dslextreme.com> writes:

On 9/4/2003 2:30 PM, Richard Heathfield:
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:

Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.
Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this? Consult the standard during programming? Frequently.

I would argue that in 99% of the cases, this should sound an alarm. To
me, this would mean one of two things: programmer who does so either
does not know C, or uses obscure constructs.

I disagree. I would argue that in order to understand and correctly apply
the standard to a given situation, a certain amount of C knowledge is
already required.
Both of these are probably not too great. First point, for obvious
reasons, and second point, since there is a great chance that a person
reading the code would have to consult the standard to figure out what
was meant by this obscure construct

If the construct is so obscure that an experienced C programmer cannot
understand it without reading the standard, then the original author
should have documented it better. :)

Martin

Nov 13 '05 #83

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499 wrote:

On 9/4/2003 12:43 PM, Kevin D. Quitt:
A significant percentage of applicants through agencies will bow out
because they're embarrassed by how they do on the test (again - I send it
to them before the interview), or for personal reasons. Does this latter
mean that I might lose somebody I'd otherwise want? Possibly, but I have
to balance that against how much interview time I save.

I started reading this book: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1D922DC5
"How Would You Move Mount Fuji?

That's /too/ easy: I wouldn't move it. It's fine where it is.

And when the interviewer says "well, just pretend...", then you can say
"fine, I'll teleport it using my whizzy new Microsoft Teleport XP (Service
Pack 6)" and then they can say "there's no such thing as teleporting" and
then you can say "but you said to pretend!" and then they can say "well,
don't pretend /that/ much" and then you can say "I think this interview is
over" and then they can go find someone more clueless and you can go home
early.

A big time-saver all round, really.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Nov 13 '05 #84

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499 wrote:

On 9/4/2003 2:30 PM, Richard Heathfield:
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:

Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this?
Consult the standard during programming? Frequently.

I would argue that in 99% of the cases, this should sound an alarm.

Oh?
To
me, this would mean one of two things: programmer who does so either
does not know C, or uses obscure constructs.
Without looking it up in any reference whatsoever, please tell me which way
round the middle two arguments of fread go.

If you happen to be able to recall these, great. I prefer not to trust to
memory on such occasions.

<large snip>
That said, I dont advocate remembering function arguments and every
function in a standard library
Aha! You see?
(although one should probably know what's
available)... but you neither do you need a standard to check for those.
Do you have a more authoritative source for the necessary information?

.... or did I misunderstand ?

I think you did. You nearly re-understood right at the end, but then you
lost it.

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Nov 13 '05 #85

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 21:15:53 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Oh, absolutely. But does it correctly detect the opposite case, where people
have skills that they modestly understate? Your answer is of considerable
interest to shrinking violets the world over.
If they claim a low number and answer most of the questions correctly,
then I begin to suspect they may have under-rated themselves a bit. Since
nobody looks at the results but me, and since I don't have a rule for
passing and failing (because you really don't do either), it's not much of
a problem.

I would look upon a negative (self-deprecating) disparity far more
favourably than a positive (self-aggrandising) disparity.
As do I. Generally, the people who rate themselves in the 8's and 9's
have done fairly poorly. 6's and 7's seem to do the best.

Thanks. The addr in my sig block works fine. Don't worry about the answer
sheet. I'll write my own. :-)

I'm sure you can. Almost all the answers to C questions come from this
group and the FAQ.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Nov 13 '05 #86

On 04 Sep 2003 20:26:56 +0200, Martin Dickopp
<ex*************@zero-based.org> wrote:

Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

I send them the test before any interview. If they do reasonably well,
then we have them in for an interview. If not, then probably not.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Nov 13 '05 #87

On 04 Sep 2003 11:43:05 -0700, Ben Pfaff <bl*@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:

Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:
Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
programming.

In case I didn't make myself clear above, the answer is yes, I don't care
what resources they use.
Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this?

All the time. I don't try to remember the order of all the parameters for
the library calls. It's hard enough just remembering that some of those
routines are available.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Nov 13 '05 #88

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:

Consult the standard during office debates? Well, it's rare. The usual
reaction to "let me just show you the bit..." is "Rich! Rich! We
***believe*** you, okay?!?!?!?!?!"

I just /hate/ it when people believe me. I don't want them to believe
me, I want them to believe the facts, even if I have stated the facts
correctly.

Therefore, when somebody asks me a question, I usually insist that he
listens to the complete answer, which often involves quoting from the
standard. ;)

Martin

Nov 13 '05 #89

On 4 Sep 2003 13:08:38 -0700, ru**@webmail.co.za (goose) wrote:

The problem i've had is that /any/ company that says "here, write this
test" has the test set by their best in-house programmers. of course,
That would be me. 8o)

that in itself is not a problem, the problem arises when these "best"
programmers aren't.
Well, I am - but I'm not perfect.

I did, of course, not even consider hearing an offer from the company,
especially when I pointed out the errors in every single question
Anybody who correctly points out an error (other than a deliberate one)
wins.

I'd rather not work under anyone with /that/ attitude.
Nor would I. Nor have I.

and very few want to look at the code I bring in.

I'm generally not interested in seeing an applicant's code unless there's
some special reason for it. All that's going to show me is their
programming idiom, and that can usually be changed if it's egregious. I'd
rather spend the time talking about their programming philosophy and
attitude, and trying to determine if they're going to be a good fit with
the existing crew.

--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91387-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this address may not be added to any commercial mail list

Nov 13 '05 #90

pete

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:

As far as the scale goes,
I've always assumed it's asymptotic rather than either linear or log.

It could also be a comparitive nonscalar scale, like Moh's scale,
which is really a table. But it's incomplete.
You have to give defining examples for 2 through 9.

http://www.24carat.co.uk/hardnessmohsscale.html

--
pete

Nov 13 '05 #91

Tom Zych

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499 wrote:

I started reading this book: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1D922DC5

Hmm. 38 characters. Not bad, but if you want a really tiny URL,
there's http://www.tinyurl.com/ . Generally about half as long.

--
Tom Zych
This email address will expire at some point to thwart spammers.
Permanent address: echo 'g******@cbobk.pbz' | rot13

Nov 13 '05 #92

Martin Dickopp wrote:

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:
Consult the standard during office debates? Well, it's rare. The usual
reaction to "let me just show you the bit..." is "Rich! Rich! We
***believe*** you, okay?!?!?!?!?!"
I just /hate/ it when people believe me. I don't want them to believe
me, I want them to believe the facts, even if I have stated the facts
correctly.

Yes, the difficulty is when you give a confident answer, they go off
happily, and then later you realise that perhaps it wasn't as clear-cut as
you thought.
Therefore, when somebody asks me a question, I usually insist that he
listens to the complete answer, which often involves quoting from the
standard. ;)

Okay, I'm listening. Here's the question: is the behaviour of this program
well-defined?

#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h>

int main(void)
{
char buf[] = "hello world";
char *p = buf;
p[-1] = (toupper)(*p++); /* This is the trouble spot. */
printf("%s\n", buf);
return 0;
}

When I first saw this, I thought "no way". Then, after discussions with a
clc regular and much thumbing of the Standard, I began to come to the
conclusion that it might be okay (for suitably pedantic values of "okay",
obviously -- the code sucks, after all).

But I'm no longer certain, because... well, never mind! Is it well-defined?
If so, why? If not, why not?

--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Nov 13 '05 #93

Kevin Easton

Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

Martin Dickopp wrote:
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> writes:
Consult the standard during office debates? Well, it's rare. The usual
reaction to "let me just show you the bit..." is "Rich! Rich! We
***believe*** you, okay?!?!?!?!?!"

I just /hate/ it when people believe me. I don't want them to believe
me, I want them to believe the facts, even if I have stated the facts
correctly.

Yes, the difficulty is when you give a confident answer, they go off
happily, and then later you realise that perhaps it wasn't as clear-cut as
you thought.
Therefore, when somebody asks me a question, I usually insist that he
listens to the complete answer, which often involves quoting from the
standard. ;)

Okay, I'm listening. Here's the question: is the behaviour of this program
well-defined?

#include <stdio.h>
#include <ctype.h>

int main(void)
{
char buf[] = "hello world";
char *p = buf;
p[-1] = (toupper)(*p++); /* This is the trouble spot. */
printf("%s\n", buf);
return 0;
}

When I first saw this, I thought "no way". Then, after discussions with a
clc regular and much thumbing of the Standard, I began to come to the
conclusion that it might be okay (for suitably pedantic values of "okay",
obviously -- the code sucks, after all).

But I'm no longer certain, because... well, never mind! Is it well-defined?
If so, why? If not, why not?

Surely not, because the indicated line both modifies p and uses its
value for a purpose other than calculating its new value without an
intervening sequence point (the sequence point before the function call
is not necessarily intervening, because there isn't a total ordering
between the modification and use of p).

If that doesn't convince you, the above is equivalent to (by the
definition of the [] operator):

*(p - 1) = (toupper)(*p++);

....and there is nothing to prevent this ordering:

Calculate p - 1 => temp 1
Calculate p + 1 => temp 2
Fetch value pointed to by temp 2 => temp 3
Store temp 2 into p
Call toupper function with temp 3 as argument
Store result into object pointed to by temp 1

(The order of evaluation of the subexpressions making up the operands to
the = operator isn't defined).

- Kevin.

Nov 13 '05 #94

Tom Zych

pete wrote:

It could also be a comparitive nonscalar scale, like Moh's scale,
which is really a table. But it's incomplete.
You have to give defining examples for 2 through 9.

9. I am Henry Spencer :)

Maybe 9.5...

--
Tom Zych
This email address will expire at some point to thwart spammers.
Permanent address: echo 'g******@cbobk.pbz' | rot13

Nov 13 '05 #95

Denis Perelyubskiy

Ok, my mistake. We're in agreement :)

denis
Richard Heathfield, 9/4/2003 3:32 PM:

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499 wrote:

On 9/4/2003 2:30 PM, Richard Heathfield:
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Martin Dickopp <ex*************@zero-based.org> writes:
>Out of curiosity, would you allow the applicant to look into the C
>standard? After all, I can also consult the standard while actually
>programming.

Out of curiosity, how many people actually do this?

Consult the standard during programming? Frequently.

I would argue that in 99% of the cases, this should sound an alarm.

Oh?

To
me, this would mean one of two things: programmer who does so either
does not know C, or uses obscure constructs.

Without looking it up in any reference whatsoever, please tell me which way
round the middle two arguments of fread go.

If you happen to be able to recall these, great. I prefer not to trust to
memory on such occasions.

<large snip>
That said, I dont advocate remembering function arguments and every
function in a standard library

Aha! You see?

(although one should probably know what's
available)... but you neither do you need a standard to check for those.

Do you have a more authoritative source for the necessary information?

.... or did I misunderstand ?

I think you did. You nearly re-understood right at the end, but then you
lost it.

--
'From' email address is used as a sink. Not read. Ever.
Instead, send to [p-o-s-t-i-n-g|o-v-e-r-w-h-e-l-m|n-e-t]
(remove dashes, replace the first vertical bar with @,
and second with a dot). Sorry for any inconvenience.

Nov 13 '05 #96

Denis Perelyubskiy

Tom Zych, 9/4/2003 5:06 PM:

Denis Perelyubskiy1770880499 wrote:

I started reading this book: http://makeashorterlink.com/?L1D922DC5

Hmm. 38 characters. Not bad, but if you want a really tiny URL,
there's http://www.tinyurl.com/ . Generally about half as long.

Ah, yes. And they have a neat bookmarklet, saving you time. Pretty
cool. :)

denis

--
'From' email address is used as a sink. Not read. Ever.
Instead, send to [p-o-s-t-i-n-g|o-v-e-r-w-h-e-l-m|n-e-t]
(remove dashes, replace the first vertical bar with @,
and second with a dot). Sorry for any inconvenience.

Nov 13 '05 #97