You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 7, 2020. It is now read-only.
My immediate thought is that I really value the simplicity of the assessment right now. Keeping the questions and answers 1:1 makes it a lot easier for folks to go in and compare what they did with the answers we provide.
I'm wondering if devising specific tests to evaluate those skills – and clearly saying it in the question – would be a better way to clearly and better assess developers' knowledge of these specific areas.
But I'd also be fine just including multiple answers if everyone else thought that was a good idea. I'm curious to think more about how we'd go about implementing 'em. At the moment the answers are just the functions on the object literals that we test. Would we have multiple directories? Or multiple files? Or maybe multiple object literals within a file?
Yeah, I was between multiple branches of this repo vs multiple directories for the answers kinda like:
- app
┖- base // the current answers
┖- es6
┖- perf
I was just interested in seeing the "advanced" answers which would use all the tools currently in the arsenal of a JS developer. I do appreciate, of course, the instructive nature of the simple answers but I would have liked to have seen the other flavors of those same answers as well :)
As for your suggestion, in my opinion you shouldn't need to add specific tests to showcase es6 et al. as all the current tests can be answered using any syntax of JS you like.
Sign up for freeto subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
What do you think of having other flavors of the answers?
Clearly labelled of course.
for example:
.forEach
.map
etcPS. Really enjoyed the challenge of the test, thanks for putting it together!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: