Apologies to the employers that I uploaded it to Github, but I was trying to keep my green squares thingy streak. I didn't upload the requirements so that it's harder to google/scrape into an LLM.
My first note is that, the quality of the code was very high, evidently the code worked and it did so in a manner that introducing changes either required little or no effort. It is unfortunate that the interviewers were annoyed by this rather than satisfied, it reads as if the interview process was written by one person and the interview was executed by someone else and was trying to check some boxes and get to his lunch.
My second note is that, while not incorrect, the approach was a bit academic and certainly harder for others to read. The functional approach is not the most common and definitely not as easy to read as the procedural approach. The interviewer, potentially a coworker, would be reading this and thinking that he would have to read this as part of their job. I don't see any upside to a functional approach here, perhaps in cases with more complexity if I were keen to this approach the pros and cons would be weighted more closely, but it feels overkill.
Third, yes, the requirements are very weird and don't correlate very well with real problems, in some scenarios it forces the developer to do some weird things to the point where you are not sure how someone will evaluate you. If I were an employer I wouldn't be able to distinguish between someone that does 10 ifs in a row because he doesn't know how to use more expressive language constructs, or because he is trying to avoid an array or whatever fucky condition was placed.
Finally, requirement 7, to not use numerical literals and functions, indeed does require to reimplement some basic math, but it was not necessary to implement all of the math. You implemented base 10 addition. My solution just implemented signle digit base 3 addition with overflow. I think overimplementing is a common trap in programming, where you find a solution in 1 minute, and then spend 60 minutes implementing that solution, whereas if you spend some time looking for more efficient solutions, you might cut that implementation and debugging time in the long run.
I wouldn't say that the approach was wrong, it certainly would have bode well with more academic types that value functional approaches, perhaps if they use functional languages like F#, haskell, Scala, Clojure, etc.. But a javascript shop just screams pragmatism and lack of love for the programming language, I don't think you read the room here.
Oh and also, definitely make an AWS account and play with the free tier, just launch a vm (ec2). AWS was hugely influential in terms of design and pricing in the SaaS industry. Remember that AWS was the first big Cloud provider Google and Azure followed, so it's not as important to make an account with the other big cloud providers.
https://github.com/TZubiri/fizzbuzz2.0
Apologies to the employers that I uploaded it to Github, but I was trying to keep my green squares thingy streak. I didn't upload the requirements so that it's harder to google/scrape into an LLM.
My first note is that, the quality of the code was very high, evidently the code worked and it did so in a manner that introducing changes either required little or no effort. It is unfortunate that the interviewers were annoyed by this rather than satisfied, it reads as if the interview process was written by one person and the interview was executed by someone else and was trying to check some boxes and get to his lunch.
My second note is that, while not incorrect, the approach was a bit academic and certainly harder for others to read. The functional approach is not the most common and definitely not as easy to read as the procedural approach. The interviewer, potentially a coworker, would be reading this and thinking that he would have to read this as part of their job. I don't see any upside to a functional approach here, perhaps in cases with more complexity if I were keen to this approach the pros and cons would be weighted more closely, but it feels overkill.
In a sense it reminds me of the satirical https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... . Where it takes the POV of someone overengineering the fizzbuzz with javalike GO4 patterns.
Third, yes, the requirements are very weird and don't correlate very well with real problems, in some scenarios it forces the developer to do some weird things to the point where you are not sure how someone will evaluate you. If I were an employer I wouldn't be able to distinguish between someone that does 10 ifs in a row because he doesn't know how to use more expressive language constructs, or because he is trying to avoid an array or whatever fucky condition was placed.
Finally, requirement 7, to not use numerical literals and functions, indeed does require to reimplement some basic math, but it was not necessary to implement all of the math. You implemented base 10 addition. My solution just implemented signle digit base 3 addition with overflow. I think overimplementing is a common trap in programming, where you find a solution in 1 minute, and then spend 60 minutes implementing that solution, whereas if you spend some time looking for more efficient solutions, you might cut that implementation and debugging time in the long run.
I wouldn't say that the approach was wrong, it certainly would have bode well with more academic types that value functional approaches, perhaps if they use functional languages like F#, haskell, Scala, Clojure, etc.. But a javascript shop just screams pragmatism and lack of love for the programming language, I don't think you read the room here.
Oh and also, definitely make an AWS account and play with the free tier, just launch a vm (ec2). AWS was hugely influential in terms of design and pricing in the SaaS industry. Remember that AWS was the first big Cloud provider Google and Azure followed, so it's not as important to make an account with the other big cloud providers.
Best of lucks! I'm sure you'll find something.