Jnr Software Developer

Swa said:
Interesting one. I know what the standard solution would be but am wondering what you would do. :D
Click to expand...

You are seriously ****ting me right. You've never heard of fizz buzz test? How long have you been coding for? You seem to be pretty much in the dark about a lot of stuff.
 
Swa said:
You do? And yet you punt C# as the right tool for every job.
Click to expand...

And you say I assume things. Nowhere do I punt C# as the tool for every job.

Swa said:
You are obfuscating the issue. It does not matter how it stands in the job market atm. A large portion of the code base is in C/C++. That fact you can't change with a momentary popularity of C#/Java. VB also had a phase where it was thought to be the way to go but it turned out to be transient.

Yes atm C#/Java may be the most sought in the job market. If you read my post correctly and not jump to your own conclusions and derail the thread completely you'll see that what I was saying is to use the right tool for the job. If it's web development then C#/Java is the way to go. I say that in my post if you'll just read it ffs. The current popularity of web apps may in fact be skewing the job market in favour of C#/Java. I prefer Java though.
Click to expand...

Swa said:
You don't seem to be getting the fact that when entering the job market betting on the horses that are trailing behind isn't the way to go.
Click to expand...

Easy to get confused with posts like these.

And tell me why you say C++ delivers better quality applications.


Swa said:
You don't know much do you? Most people coming into programming think that OOP is the correct way to go and try to force it to fit the mould ending in something between procedural programming and a half hearted attempt at OOP. Company policy may even mandate it used. Experience however shows that it has its place but that place isn't everywhere. Most data is actually unnatural to think of in terms of OOP.
Click to expand...

I'll give you this. OOP is not always the way to go but it sure as hell isn't just an arb concept that nobody uses.
 
One thing most developers don't lack is big personalities... :whistle:
 
Necuno said:
One thing most developers don't lack is big personalities... :whistle:
Click to expand...

Programming in Ego.NET since not long enough ago :twisted:

At least any jnr dev reading through this thread will get a good idea of how different everybody's opinions and approaches can be.
 
Necuno said:
One thing most developers don't lack is big personalities... :whistle:
Click to expand...

Agreed, but when some guy comes here punting his opinions and doesn't see or understand the benefits of OOP i question his intelligence on anything related to the field.
 
Swa said:
It has its place sure so it would be incorporated into new languages. Can't agree with C though. It's structural but not an object-oriented language which is a requirement for using OOP. I think you may be confusing it with Objective-C.
Click to expand...

Ouch. It sounds as though you don't even know what OOP is. You can create a structure, which contains a set of function pointers (or pointer to a table of function pointers) associated with a particular instance. It has identity, state and behavior - it is an object. Constructs such as inheritance and polymorphism follow naturally from this (just choose the right function pointer table), and have derived class data follow sequentially after the base class.

These are simply the operations that C++ would do behind the scenes anyway - the syntax makes it easier to do, but it is fairly standard practice to do this in C too, where it makes sense, and where C++ is not an acceptable option.
 
cguy said:
Ouch. It sounds as though you don't even know what OOP is. You can create a structure, which contains a set of function pointers (or pointer to a table of function pointers) associated with a particular instance. It has identity, state and behavior - it is an object. Constructs such as inheritance and polymorphism follow naturally from this (just choose the right function pointer table), and have derived class data follow sequentially after the base class.
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem like you know. So you have a structure that holds a pointer to a function. You have to set it to the correct function for each "object." (1st potential error) To use it you have to dereference a pointer. No that isn't a method intrinsically tied to its object, it's just procedural programming. You have to manually pass the structure or a pointer. (2nd potential error) You don't have inheritance so have to use containment instead. Quite cumbersome and counter intuitive to OOP. You might as well use separate procedures. Oh and don't forget to update that function pointer if necessary. (3rd potential error) No you don't have an object, you have a structure.

cguy said:
These are simply the operations that C++ would do behind the scenes anyway - the syntax makes it easier to do, but it is fairly standard practice to do this in C too, where it makes sense, and where C++ is not an acceptable option.
Click to expand...
Yes that is the point of OOP. It's behind the scenes so most associations happen automatically exposing you to less errors. It's object oriented because you're thinking of objects and not data structures that have to be procedurally manipulated.
 
Sigh. Dude, the ship has sailed on this one. C programmers have been writing OO code for decades. Just do some googling, read the book "OO in ANSI C", and stop being so contumaciously contrarian.

Swa said:
Doesn't seem like you know. So you have a structure that holds a pointer to a function. You have to set it to the correct function for each "object." (1st potential error)
Click to expand...

Same as C++, just choose a named method table, in the same way as you would name an instance's class. This can be generated by an object factory or constructor function.

Swa said:
To use it you have to dereference a pointer.
Click to expand...

Same as C++ for virtual functions. If the -> syntax offends you, it can easily be wrapped in a method that takes the object as a parameter.

Swa said:
No that isn't a method intrinsically tied to its object, it's just procedural programming. You have to manually pass the structure or a pointer. (2nd potential error)
Click to expand...

Of course they're tied together, the method only operates on objects of that type (determined by the first parameter usually). In C++ this parameter is just in a different place.

Swa said:
You don't have inheritance so have to use containment instead. Quite cumbersome and counter intuitive to OOP.
Click to expand...

Of course there is inheritance (just create a function table which is a copy of the old one and overwrite the methods you want to change, and ignore the the methods you want to inherent). You don't need object containment either, a simple set of macros containing attribute lists will allow you to define inheritance in much the same way as C++.

Swa said:
You might as well use separate procedures. Oh and don't forget to update that function pointer if necessary. (3rd potential error) No you don't have an object, you have a structure.
Click to expand...

Update function pointer? Why would that be necessary - only the table pointer needs to be set per object, same as C++.

Swa said:
Yes that is the point of OOP. It's behind the scenes so most associations happen automatically exposing you to less errors. It's object oriented because you're thinking of objects and not data structures that have to be procedurally manipulated.
Click to expand...

No, that is the point of C++/Java/C#/etc. OOP is a paradigm - being "behind the scenes" has nothing to do with using the paradigm - you can shout that this isn't so from the rooftops all you want, but the world disagrees with you. I've worked in several OO C code bases before, and there is no conceptual difference to the model, and from the caller/API user's perspective, the syntax is actually pretty damn clean. No, overall I don't think C's OO syntax is particularly awesome, but fortunately I know the difference between syntax and semantics.
 
Last edited:
Necuno said:
Sadly the selection whether or not AA gets send to one, one has to siff through that to find the diamond. It is however, as noted, shocking how many are not on par and couldn't write the most simplest piece of Code. Let alone look at a method and note the problems therein. Perhaps if they actually did come prepared it would have been another story, even on the surface alone that would be a key for the OP to success.

I am however curious looking at your initial reply, do tel, how does calling people names help the OP?
Click to expand...

Do you have an example of such a test, what I learned in Unisa doesn't seem to apply in the real world.
 
Horsekit said:
So, I just started learning how to programme. Can you guys give me some advice on what I need to land that first junior software developer job?

-What programming languages do I need to know?

-What level of proficiency is required for a junior position?

-What other skills and abilities will I need to land the job?

I'm not planning to start applying tomorrow. I just wish to know what my goals should be and how I should go about to achieve them to land the job.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

As stated by some of the other comments, language is not important, but mentality, learning how to thin like a programmer.
Junior programmer is consider anything from 0 years to about 4 years (depends on how quick a learner you are)
Need no real other skills accept the willingness to learn

For languages C# and Java will land you a job and learn SQL and supporting tools
 
cguy said:
/snip
Click to expand...
Sure bud sure. Your post is so littered with errors it's not even worth responding to. Just hope no newbie takes any of it seriously. Think I just found a new test for employers. If anyone "passes" it they can safely be overlooked as potential job candidates.
 
Swa said:
Sure bud sure. Your post is so littered with errors it's not even worth responding to. Just hope no newbie takes any of it seriously. Think I just found a new test for employers. If anyone "passes" it they can safely be overlooked as potential job candidates.
Click to expand...

Well, I would love to hear your expert opinion about my errors. You owe it to those newbies who would otherwise be damanged by my incompetence. As a matter of interest, do you have any qualifications? I would love to know what/where you studied that set the foundation for the insights you have been sharing with us in this thread.
 
cguy said:
Well, I would love to hear your expert opinion about my errors. You owe it to those newbies who would otherwise be damanged by my incompetence. As a matter of interest, do you have any qualifications? I would love to know what/where you studied that set the foundation for the insights you have been sharing with us in this thread.
Click to expand...

You're wasting your time he's to illiterate to grasp basic concepts.
 
Swa said:
If it's web development then C#/Java is the way to go.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
C#/Java is ONE way to go, the predominant way currently is Javascript.

For serious use of javascript on the web - check http://www.findyourwaytooz.com/

Please don't come back saying "It's using WebGl and that's written in xyz" because then we can break everything down and advise everyone on the planted to learn how to use punchcards and go back to that method.


And OP - Python is as good a place as any to start.
 
rward said:
I disagree.
C#/Java is ONE way to go, the predominant way currently is Javascript.
Click to expand...

Sigh. What do you base that on? Sure, most interesting websites contain Javascript client side, but they are still often backed by a fat server side system written in something else most of the time. If I for example log into the internet banking of my bank, the server side software that gets my bank balance is very unlikely to be written in JavaScript.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_languages_used_in_most_popular_websites
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X