• Sam@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    When I’m doing coding interviews I always like to start off and say I’m a big fan of very long variable names. “As descriptive as you can be” I say. Then I get to my first for loop. Instead of i I use “iterator” and then when I start a nested loop I use “jiterator” and it always gets a laugh.

    • Dandroid@dandroid.app
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I used to conduct coding interviews at my old job. If someone came in and had some humor like that, it would be big bonus points in my book. Being someone I would like to be on a team with is very important. Plus, I think it shows confidence and being comfortable in situations that make most people nervous.

      • Hazama@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve been at two start ups and they had me interview people. Honestly this is what I looked for. I’d ask basic questions to prove you had an idea about coding, but I can teach someone to code, I can’t teach someone to be someone I like working with.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can teach them to code if there is an underlying level of logic to build off. I’ve met a few people in life who I know for a fact will never code, no matter how smart they generally are.

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    i is for index. j is simply the next letter and we’re too lazy to think up something meaningful

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It depends. x and y are either elements or coordinates, a and b usually elements though in e.g. Haskell reserved (by convention) for type variables.

    The i j k l series is reserved for indices. n m etc. are the counts of something, as such you’ll see i counting up to n. Both are due to mathematical sum notation and general mathematical convention. Random google result:

    Let x1, x2, x3, …xn denote a set of n numbers. x1 is the first number in the set. xi represents the ith number in the set.

    …if you’re using a language in which you use i often chances are you should stop coding in C and get yourself a language with iterators. Manual loops are a bug magnet.

  • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I used starcraft references in mine till the project lead demanded I knock it off.

    The protoss quotes were perfect.

    • pazukaza@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh wow, I thought it was because “i” was a short way of writing “index”. Then “j” was just logical after that.

    • catfish@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      And people who iterate over 3D space using firstDimensionIndex, secondDimensionIndex, and thirdDimensionIndex instead of x, y, z have no sense 😜

  • StudioLE@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    A useful tip I picked up was to use ii instead of j for an inner loop. It’s far more distinct than j.

    If for some terrible reason you have even more inner loops you can easily continue the trend i, ii, iii, iiii, iiiii - or iv, v if you’re feeling roman

    • hstde@lemmy.fmhy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you have the need to nest 5 levels of for-loops, I suggest taking a step back and rethinking your approach, my friend.

      Even if that other approach is just refactoring it into separate methods.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      When you have multiple indices you’re also bound to have multiple cardinals those indices count up to, say foo.length and bar.length, so foo_i and bar_i are perfectly legible and self-documenting. A bit Hungarian but Hungarian is good in small amounts. Unless you’re dealing with width and height in which case it’s x and y but it’s not that width_i would be incomprehensible.