I gather from your comment that you don’t do frontend. I don’t either. I also think it’s a waste of time. But I think you and I are not the intended audience. I think frontend people are trying to design an experience for users. The same way you or I might be designing an architecture for the system. They want it to look and feel a certain way in order to provoke a response.
If the length is bundled with the pointer as syntax then the compiler and maybe even the runtime can provide checking on behalf of the programmer. Passing it by hand means it’s the programmers responsibility to (remember to) validate
I suspect it’s because manual memory management in Java isn’t built into the language. Is it even possible? I’m not a Java programmer and I don’t know. My understanding has been that the runtime doesn’t expose the memory model to you.
Neat idea. What does implementing new syntax in one of the established C compilers involve? Is it the kind of thing that could be reasonably tackled in a small patch just to play with?
Same thing happened to me after playing for a few days the last time this was posted. I checked the directions several times and agonized over what the word could possibly be. In my opinion the possibility of repeated letters should be called out explicitly in the instructions, and maybe also adding a new color of tile for this scenario.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting Riot would do anything underhanded.
Ironically, the idea that only Riot will ever be able to leverage the capabilities of this software service is probably why many don’t mind running it.
Unfortunately, that idea is flawed for the much the same reason the idea of backdooring encryption algorithms is flawed.
I asked this once as a take home for an interview. First, I copied the first hit for “implement binary tree in C” from google. I made sure it compiled and then deleted the implementation of the insert method. That was the take home. I wanted to know that the applicant could reimplement this one missing function and compile the project and not get immediately stuck.
I’m not saying that you are or are not, because I don’t have any context, but consider that your feeling might be wrong. I mean, there’s the real possibility that you are a bad interviewer or a bad phone screener or whatever. Again, not saying that _you_ personally are. I don’t have the information to know. I’m just pointing out that it’s the moral equivalent of “if everywhere you go smells like the dog went poo, maybe you should check the bottom of your shoe”
The reason I point it out is because if the industry is going to actually get better at interviews (something we generally agree needs improvement) then we have to continuously challenge the assumption that we are actually good at interviewing when it’s our turn on that side of the conversation.