Brainbench perl test?
jaspermccrea at gmail.com
Tue Sep 4 15:07:20 BST 2012
On 4 September 2012 14:38, Will Crawford <billcrawford1970 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 September 2012 14:27, Jasper <jaspermccrea at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4 September 2012 14:12, Piers Cawley
>> <pdcawley-london.0dd185 at bofh.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Or, in an attempt to really drive it home:
>>> blarg(n) is equal to blarg( n - 1 ) * 2 + blarg( n - 2 )
>>> There you go. Not the Fibonacci sequence, but still a recursive
>>> definition, trivially implementable with a recursive condition given a
>>> couple more bits of knowledge (the values of blarg(0) and blarg(1)).
>> Aha! A couple more bits of knowledge. Now my machine can stop dying
>> when I run my program.
>> The question as originally described is a starting point to deciding
>> if someone can think logically, but it does not fully describe the
> The point most of us are trying to make is that a programmer who
> doesn't *ask* you for those "bits of knowledge" hasn't understood the
> question sufficiently :)
I think that that is probably what most of us are thinking, but the
wording that I quoted in my previous post made me wonder.
If someone said to me in an interview this is the problem, that's all
you need to know, then when I coded it and said I did exactly what you
asked for but it obviously doesn't work and then they said oh, but of
course you should have known this and you should have known that, go
ahead and put those things in the program, too, I would say JHC this
is exactly the same crap as the job I'm in, why would I want to come
More information about the london.pm