A Raw Talk on Failure

Over the course of the past few years, I’ve submitted my résumé hundreds of times to various places. Very few have given me the feedback needed to improve professionally. It seems like interviewers often feel it’s a taboo to discuss the interview with the person being interrogated – and I mean interrogated in these cases.

On a rare and special occasion, someone will provide very helpful feedback. One of the most mysterious feedbacks I ever got was after an interview at Google. The day after the interview, the recruiter starts with this question:
“How do you think you did?”

When I responded with something like “I’m so embarrassed. I know I did poorly. There’s no way that would have been good.” then Google would be open for another round of interviews a few weeks later.

But when I responded with something like “I feel really good about it! They threw wrenches and my code already handled all their cases! I feel great!” then the recruiter would stop the interviewing process.

I’ve made some cringeworthy mistakes in interviews that sit like a pit in my stomach. One common thread is that I tried to impress people by doing something beyond myself. Companies don’t care that you move out of your comfort zone. They care nothing of effort – they want results that are easily measurable. Being a senior-level developer that produces junior-level code because I’m developing something outside my experience doesn’t impress.

You might think that you’re getting the “Don’t call us – we’ll call you” message if you ever see the phrase “We’re keeping your resume on file.” in a rejection letter. For the most part, you’re right. But I have had a couple of rare occasions where the company actually did call me back and after another round of interviews, been given nice offers.

Failure and rejection are not the same, and if you're living right, neither are avoidable. Share on X

The point I want to make here is that rejection isn’t the same thing as failure and vice-versa.

Some rejections are not explained, but they aren’t because of a failure on your part. Some failures are obvious and can be tied into that rejection. But sometimes there’s complete failure that results in acceptance and even becomes a model for success.

The greatest rejection we face is that within ourselves. All the names we call ourselves – or that we allow others to call us. For some people, the rejection leads to a dialogue of worthlessness that goes very dark.

After a recent visit to a “Break Free” session, three-fourths of the people from 12 to 82 raised their hands or nodded when asked if they feel harsh failure and rejection from the voices inside their heads.

In the following posts, I’d like to explore this deeper and provide some solid solutions that remedy some of the deepest pains we experience – even those that lead to suicide. The truth is: failure is not an option because it’s inevitable. Even hiding from failure is in itself a failure to live. On the same token, rejection is a continuous battle fought most within our own minds.

This article is from the “Raw Talk on Failure” series.

Photo by rawpixel on Unsplash

Stack Overflow: over 1k and back again

A month ago, I checked into stack overflow to see if I could help someone out – you know, be a good boy and give back to the community.

A person had a basic question about string concatenation in SQL. I promptly answered and provided a code snippet example. The OP was overjoyed! Angels heralded from the heavens, baby kittens were born. I broke the 1,000 point barrier when he checked my answer.

The next day I hopped on and my credits were back down below 1k. Wait, what!?

He unchecked my answer. Was it wrong? Nope. And neither was he.

It turns out someone posted an answer he liked better from which I learned a few things, which is awesome!!

  • it’s not about me or my points. I was disappointed that I lost my lovely 1k status, but that just reflected a selfish motive. I learned that I need to work on my character.
  • SQL 2017 has a new function: STRING_AGG() which finally performs what people have been wanting and hacking in SQL scripts since 2008. (Oracle 11gR2 had this ability in 2009 with the LISTAGG function.)
  • StackOverflow doesn’t have an alert for when your answer is declined. When someone accepts your answer, promotes it or demotes it, a little red or green badge appears over your score. If someone unchecks your answer, you don’t see a red badge. It would be nice if they drew the user to the question so, like in this case, he can learn some new tricks.

In this industry, one of the properties that sets apart a jr. developer from a seasoned one is the variety, value and vastness of knowledge built from experiences and experimentation. A little adjustment and this could have been an automated lesson. Why doesn’t StackOverflow take its vast knowledge base and perform a medical analysis on people’s posts (questions) to find similar questions that have been answered? StackOverflow has more opportunities to be mined for those who look for the potential.

(Image by Pawel Janiak on Unsplash)

(Image by Pawel Janiak on Unsplash)

My Favorite JavaScript Language Feature

Recently on one of the social network feeds, there was a long thread of developers putting their input into the question: “What is your favorite JavaScript feature.”

Most people were putting in things like object destructuring, closures, map-filter-apply, reduce, spread operators, promises, arrow functions, first-class functions, eval, async and await. One person even answered with a code sample and another mentioned the use of closure with a block declaration as a model for scope. A block declaration is the use of the ({ … code … }) structure.

function pwrGen() {
    var i = 0;
 
    return {
        next: function() {
 
            var ret = Math.pow(i, 2);
            i++;

            return ret;
        }
    };
}

var gen = pwrGen();

console.log(gen.next(), gen.next(), gen.next()); // -> 0 1 4

Something that I’ve grown to appreciate is the Truthy and Falsey properties, which I think only one other person among hundreds gave mention to.

Here’s why: because JavaScript is a loosely typed language, it handles certain types of conversions in context of the statement they’re in. This provides a way to do a unary collates, quickly identify value, and quick boolean conversions.

Unary Collation

console.log(true && 'all prior conditions are true');

console.log(false || 'all prior conditions are false');

Is There Value?

if (!!thisVarHasValue) { ...

In this example, we can use the bang operator to quickly convert any variable into a boolean. However, there are some caveats.

Can you handle the Truthy?

As you may have noticed in the prior example, there are two bang operators. The first bang operator changes the variable to a boolean type. The second one reverses that. As a result, if the variable “thisVarHasValue” has a value, it results in a True response … with a few exceptions.

The values undefined, 0, and 0.00 and NaN all produce false values. Empty strings also produce a false value. However, empty arrays and strings of zero values produce a true value.

Quickening

Efficiency is on the mind of any good coder. I like to run small benchmarking programs to get numbers when I haven’t come across other posts that do it. Below is a short program that you can run on JSFiddle. It takes a million rows then iterates through them using a single-bang (falsey) and a triple bang (double-falsey) operator compared to a typical undefined-or-zero comparison.

var a = [];

var div = document.getElementById("answer");

div.innerHTML = !!a;

for (var x = 0; x < 1000000; x++) {

  a.push(x);

}



// [Call to doSomething] took 17399.999999965075 milliseconds.


var t0 = performance.now();


for (var x = 0; x < 1000000; x++) {

  if (!a[x]) {
    a.push(x);

  } else {
    a.push(x);

  }
}


var t1 = performance.now();

div.innerHTML = "Single-bang took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.";





var a = [];

t0 = performance.now();


for (var x = 0; x < 1000000; x++) {

    if (!!a[x]) {
      a.push(x);

    }
}
t1 = performance.now();

div.innerHTML = div.innerHTML + "<br/>Double-bang took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.";





var a = [];

t0 = performance.now();


for (var x = 0; x < 1000000; x++) {
    if (!!!a[x]) {
      a.push(x);
    }
}
t1 = performance.now();

div.innerHTML = div.innerHTML + "<br/>Triple-bang took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.";





var a = [];

t0 = performance.now();


for (var x = 0; x < 1000000; x++) {

    if (a[x] === undefined || a[x] === 0) {
        a.push(x);
    } else {
        a.push(x);
    }
}
t1 = performance.now();

div.innerHTML = div.innerHTML + "<br/>Condition checking took " + (t1 - t0) + " milliseconds.";

The result is somewhat consistent. The double-bang is the fastest, followed by the triple-bang, the single-bang, and finally, the typical condition check:

Single-bang took 3.2000000355765224 milliseconds.
Double-bang took 2.899999963119626 milliseconds.
Triple-bang took 3.000000026077032 milliseconds.
Condition checking took 3.2999999821186066 milliseconds.

But remember, this is across a million rows. a tenth of a millisecond doesn’t amount to much. This was an exercise to see if there was something substantial to use in optimizing code and to peek into the JavaScript engine’s behavior.

What I find interesting is how the triple-bang, which is the same value as the single-bang, is somehow just slightly faster. I’ll have to do a follow-up later as to why this is the case.