Would you do a 4-hr take-home assignment? What if I gave you a $100 amazon gift card?
There's a big difference between making someone jump through countless, one-sided hoops and asking for a little effort. The challenge IME is finding the balance.
Personally, if I can get to an onsite with another company after a recruiter chat and phone screen, I’m not even going to do a “2 hour” project. In my experience, actually spending the recommended amount of time on one of these take home projects is a losing proposition when there are people who will spend more time on it.
It hurts to quantify it this way, but the pot to fund health care is not bottomless in either a pure public or privately insured system. It needs to be spread across the entire population, and across all of the potential issues an individual may face.
yes - it's relatively cheap when you're youngish (i.e. kids < 20) which is when your family would need it the most. Treat the premiums as a sunk cost (you know, actual insurance) instead of some sort of investment or convertible policy.
Yet another way the market is rigged against the main street investor. Successful founders of this vintage love to build their company on public money, then use their considerable leverage to take the company private after dramatic growth. I wonder if Dell will live long enough to repeat the entire process...
My first reaction was similar to the GP - not sure you can throw out the word "officially" when it refers to something you say you did at 11 years old, unless it's documented or there is some sort of record. When the overall post is how you have nothing to show for it, that's kind of the opposite of official.
Don't really care if people want to measure differently, but IMO what you've done in the past 2 years is way more important than how long you've been doing it. The 15 year old genius I went to university with is now 33 and doing the same mundane things as most salary devs.
I suppose perhaps that is what I was also thinking. I too was doing nutty stuff at 12 years of age, soldering together computers, writing code, creating software. When I interview or talk to people, that would not matter much. Perhaps it just came off as pretentious in the context of the blog.
Why would someone need to preemptively learn both React and Vue? I can get saying you want to understand how they accomplish their respective roles, but is there an actual (non-crazy) scenario where your core, day-to-day job depends on really knowing both?
Or is that the whole point? Am I erroneously assuming "learn" means really deep knowledge(which for me really digging into any single one of these would be enough) when it means "known enough to pass a job interview when I ladder-up to the next company"?
I'm primarily a back-end dev but do some front end work which is mostly React. I didn't like it much and thought there should be something better. Learned Vue on my own time, which was only a few hours. Did a super simple side project to work around some common gotchas. So glad I did, now use Vue for all new work and encourage people at work on greenfield projects. Now, I'm playing around with alternate state management, vue-stash looks good so far, haven't run into any issues with it but it's early on.
> Vue 3 is being written in TypeScript
This is such great news. Just did my first Vue2/ts app and it's so much nicer. Wasn't easy to find all the info, there should a good Vue2/ts tutorial somewhere.
The 'type'ing with PropTypes which required much typing. Also having to edit 4 or more places to add one thing. Let's see there's where the UI calls the action, the action, the api request, the reducer and finally the render of the data along with any new proptypes you introduced copied to each consumer.
I imagine it could be better with a different state management library or maybe ReactReason or TypeScript. The other thing I really like about Vue is how the layout and logic stay separated. With React and JSX there's always code all over the place: class methods, regular methods, lambdas, inline '&&' throughout the JSX. The way Vue handles events is far simpler.
I do however see the value in all of this with React when working on a large team. It all adds up to safety. I haven't yet worked on a Vue app that has grown complex enough to feel any of that necessary as where even a simple React app's structure is already complex.
PropTypes aren't required. Also, the "action" stuff is about Redux, not React.
For Redux specifically, we've got a new `redux-starter-kit` package available. It helps simplify several common use cases, including store setup, defining reducers, immutable update logic, and even creating entire "slices" of state without writing any action types or action creators by hand. I'd encourage anyone using Redux to try it out and let us know how much it helps you.
Whenever I read the source for React apps, I see a lot of machinery that varies depending on library choices, PropTypes and Redux are just examples. With Vue apps more of the source appears like things for the application and not the machinery. I also greatly value the separation of <template>, code, and style but still kept in a single file per component. All of this may be possible with React, but with Vue it's the default.
Agreed - they're not stupid, it's just not their money.
If I can reap the glory of a new stadium, or hosting the Olympics (as my city just narrowly avoided) while you pay the bill for years to come, that's a winning proposition.
What you're describing is how property taxes already work. If the land value rises (however unlikely that is) most property taxes are based on assessed value which would increase your tax bill.
There's a big difference between making someone jump through countless, one-sided hoops and asking for a little effort. The challenge IME is finding the balance.