Look at mister test driven development over here. Hey everyone this guy writes unit tests.
I'm joking here but I think that a lot of people ignore basics like writing unit tests, and that statically typed languages will break a lot more quickly and predictably for people who are lazier, since it enforces structure.
However, I agree with you. Also I think that the people who really push for static typing are the kinds of people who already would write unit tests.
We do. Most of our projects have 80%+ unit test coverage and decent amount e2e/acceptance tests.
The problem with TypeScript is that in most codebases you will need to disable useful type-checks. Without strict null checking, you will only catch trivial errors. Additionally, you will interface with a lot of JS code that do not provide typings.
Sure, but they were giving those to you for free and now they'll be taking them away without decreasing the price. So you're still paying the same for the base fare, it's just nobody gets the "luxuries" anymore.
It's also funny how some of those "luxuries" were originally part of the base service to make everyone's experience better and by removing them, now everyone's experience is worse and costs more. Primarily: checked baggage exists as a system to get baggage out of the cramped main cabin and into simpler, dedicated storage with marginal and reasonably efficient load/unload times. By charging fees for any checked baggage (as opposed to excessive checked baggage as used to be the regime), the airlines incentivize a lot more people to try to cram every thing they can carry on into the main cabin. This results in slower loading/unloading times of people because all the carry ons fill the bins quite inefficiently; many peoples bags wind up in bins that aren't easy for them to access for them to unload; some peoples bags won't fit at all because there has never been enough room in the main cabin. The airlines now have to compensate for this by asking for volunteers to gate check bags for every flight, which is a waste of everyone's time involved, and still not as efficient for anyone involved as simply checking bags up front like airlines originally were planned to do and airports were planned to handle.
"Primarily: checked baggage exists as a system to get baggage out of the cramped main cabin and into simpler, dedicated storage with marginal and reasonably efficient load/unload times. By charging fees for any checked baggage (as opposed to excessive checked baggage as used to be the regime), the airlines incentivize a lot more people to try to cram every thing they can carry on into the main cabin."
So Frontier, Spirit, and now the "Basic Economy" fares charge even more for cabin bags than for checked bags. Problem solved.
One theory I heard about the checked bag fees (back when carry-on bags were no extra charge) was that the fee freed up cargo space so the airline could carry more paid air cargo, purposefully pushing baggage into the main cabin.
«So Frontier, Spirit, and now the "Basic Economy" fares charge even more for cabin bags than for checked bags. Problem solved.»
Because no one ever travels with baggage? You can argue its "price transparency", but forcing something everyone needs to be an "add-on" is awfully shady.
«One theory I heard about the checked bag fees (back when carry-on bags were no extra charge) was that the fee freed up cargo space so the airline could carry more paid air cargo, purposefully pushing baggage into the main cabin.»
The other theory I've heard is that "unbundling" a lot of these fees and moving them to being charged at checkin and/or the gate has meant that traditional travel agents and corporate booking can't touch or negotiate them (because they aren't direct flight costs anymore). Given most corporate expense systems don't allow for reporting "add-on fees" at an airport (and it took a while for any corporate execs to catch up to a possible need to add baggage fees as an expense that could/should be reported; many companies still seem to have yet to notice), this was a good way for the airlines to increase flight costs across the board without immediately upsetting fat cat corporate clients and choice travel agents by sneakily passing the cost difference directly to employees/flyers who at that point were a "captive audience" to the new fees.
Right, I've always thought it made more sense to charge for carry-ons than for (some moderate allowance of) checked bags, since checked bags are easier on the airline:
- less of the scarce cabin space used
- less time/complication loading the plane
- less labor to inspect (you have to apply more scrutiny to stuff a passenger can use in flight), although airless don't directly pay for that.
... but less desirable for passengers (other than not having to carry):
- have to wait for it at baggage claim
- can't access it during the flight
- have to risk the stuff being stolen or lost
Not surprisingly, every flight has the overhead bins over capacity, even though this shouldn't be possible! (I think it's because someone will have a regulation size carry-on and then add a second carry-on that takes too much space, and airline employees aren't paid enough to start confrontations by correcting passengers.)
The difficulty with that has mostly been logistics. It's hard to confirm what people are bringing on as a carry-on until you're literally boarding the plane.
Try getting $50 out of someone as they're boarding a plane.
A major part of these choices involve whether they're feasible in situations with time pressure and frustrated passengers. Luckily airline staff have huge latitude to help defuse situations with angry customers.
This was like last year's SANS Holiday Hack challenge which centered around reverse engineering a child's doll that was recording everything going on in the house.
"There were also a couple of companies that assigned me coding tests where they asked me to “print a ladder” and “find repeating numbers.” I rejected those tests not because of arrogance but because my skills were beyond what they thought is needed from the role. And yes, the roles were for a Software Architect. However, instead of testing my skills in architecture and logic, I had to print a ladder on the screen."
This is arrogance. In my experience, most companies throw simple tests even at people applying for higher positions for several reasons:
1. It very quickly sorts out people who lie on their resume
2. You can tell a lot about a person's skill level by how they answer even a simple coding assignment - how are functions and variables named, does it take in args, what style is the commenting, does it do error handling, input validation, which language features are used to solve it etc, etc?
To be honest, it's also a good filter for people like, well, the author. I don't want to work with an arrogant "rockstar" who's "too good" for FizzBuzz.
3. Software Architects don't get to spend all day every day building sandcastles of the mind; sometimes they have to get down in the trenches and write some low-level code. If they won't do it during an interview, they probably won't do it on the job either.
In fact, I'd never trust an architect that didn't. I've worked with too many that can solve problems on a white board but hand wave away real world issues.
> how are functions and variables named, does it take in args, what style is the commenting, does it do error handling, input validation, which language features are used to solve it etc, etc?
A lot of that is going to depend on the test. For fizzbuzz using functions at all would be over complicated, if it's timed then I'm not going to bother with comments and variable naming.
Yeah, I've never really understood being _offended_ by being asked to do something relatively simple (and honestly, those are actually pretty good problems). I might consider it a little amusing if somebody asked me to write FizzBuzz or something really basic, but I would shrug my shoulders and do it.
I agree, although I might be offended if an interviewer spent more than a few minutes on such things once it was clear that you could do them. However, that's more about not respecting the value of your time than the difficulty of the problem(s), just like expecting you to do a day of homework problem(s) before they even meet you.
No, just by myself. I do "join" another company which takes care of billing and taxes. For health insurance I just use my wife's company's health plan.
I live in Boston and am about to turn 30. I am making $130 plus about $25 in stock and 10% bonus. I'd appreciate any advice in how to continue growing that to achieve your level of success.
I'm joking here but I think that a lot of people ignore basics like writing unit tests, and that statically typed languages will break a lot more quickly and predictably for people who are lazier, since it enforces structure.
However, I agree with you. Also I think that the people who really push for static typing are the kinds of people who already would write unit tests.