Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #38838

Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()

Path	csiph.com!aioe.org!.POSTED.xV/6gj+grSZn0+TB/DGTcw.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail
From	Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg@example.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: Interview question - better solution for MergePurgeAndReverseOrder()
Date	Sat, 30 Mar 2019 11:16:46 +0000
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines	18
Message-ID	<q7nj6u$vqe$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	<q7lbvc$152e$1@gioia.aioe.org> <And-20190329162634@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de> <q7lihk$3ut$1@gioia.aioe.org> <m31s2ora05.fsf@sonera.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host	xV/6gj+grSZn0+TB/DGTcw.user.gioia.aioe.org
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
X-Complaints-To	abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1
X-Notice	Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Content-Language	en-GB
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:38838

Show key headers only | View raw

On 30/03/2019 09:23, Jukka Lahtinen wrote:
> You could have implemented it to call the methods resulting from the
> split.

Again, I couldn't do that. Lots of technical interview tests are done
online these days and they have a similar format. If you look at
HackerRank.com you will see how it works. The whole program is supplied
(static text you can't change) except for the area you need to implement
(the body of the method in question).

But again, I definitely agree with all the points made. The method name
is too long, the method does more than one thing etc. But it seems good
design was not what they were testing, but rather the knowledge of how
to use the java language and libraries.

Regards,
  Graeme

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