Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #38825

Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()

From	Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()
Date	2019-03-29 11:19 -0400
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<q7ld2o$vqp$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<q7lbvc$152e$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

On 3/29/2019 11:01 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I recently attended a Java developer interview and had to implement the
> MergePurgeAndReverseSort() method. I managed to complete it and
> afterwards wrote some unit tests to confirm that it works. But is there
> a better way to implement it, or did I do an okay job about it.
> 
> I can post the unit tests too if that might help.
> 
> Any feedback would be very much appreciated.
> 
> [Code snipped; see up-thread]

     Looks pretty much okay, although it could be tightened a bit.
Most of the opportunities for tightening come down to matters of
taste, but one that stands out (to me, anyway) is the matter of
moving all the Integers into a single array merely to move them
again into a Set -- Why not just pop 'em into the Set right away?

     I personally would have written the rest somewhat differently
than you did, but the differences don't seem important.  Matters
of taste, as I wrote earlier.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
Six hundred sixty-three days to go.

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 15:01 +0000
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 11:19 -0400
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 16:42 +0000
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 13:47 -0400
        Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 13:53 -0400
        Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.news@laposte-dot-net.invalid> - 2019-03-29 19:42 +0100
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-29 16:53 +0000
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 10:19 -0700
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Jukka Lahtinen <jtfjdehf@hotmail.com.invalid> - 2019-03-30 11:23 +0200
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-30 11:16 +0000
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-03-29 13:20 -0700
    Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net> - 2019-03-30 11:21 +0000
      Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() Eric Douglas <e.d.programmer@gmail.com> - 2019-04-01 04:56 -0700
  Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder() bursejan@gmail.com - 2019-03-29 15:40 -0700

csiph-web