oleg koval oleg-koval

Better local require() paths for Node.js

Problem

When the directory structure of your Node.js application (not library!) has some depth, you end up with a lot of annoying relative paths in your require calls like:

const Article = require('../../../../app/models/article');

Those suck for maintenance and they're ugly.

Possible solutions

CI:
- Circle CI
- Travis CI
Coverage:
- Coveralls
- Codecov
Repo monitoring / PR review
- Greenkeeper
- Dependabot
(Codacy - Code Quality)[https://app.codacy.com]

Consolidated this info from various Stack Overflow questions:

Mutable data

you need to know:
- what data means
- where data was first assigned
- where data can be changed
- when data can be changed
- if those changes can happen concurrently and require locks, what sequence locks need to be acquired in
- if changing the data needs coordination with others

While attempting to explain JavaScript's reduce method on arrays, conceptually, I came up with the following - hopefully it's helpful; happy to tweak it if anyone has suggestions.

Intro

JavaScript Arrays have lots of built in methods on their prototype. Some of them mutate - ie, they change the underlying array in-place. Luckily, most of them do not - they instead return an entirely distinct array. Since arrays are conceptually a contiguous list of items, it helps code clarity and maintainability a lot to be able to operate on them in a "functional" way. (I'll also insist on referring to an array as a "list" - although in some languages, List is a native data type, in JS and this post, I'm referring to the concept. Everywhere I use the word "list" you can assume I'm talking about a JS Array) This means, to perform a single operation on the list as a whole ("atomically"), and to return a new list - thus making it much simpler to think about both the old list and the new one, what they contain, and

If you have Homebrew (which you can get from https://brew.sh), just run:

brew install protobuf

or

PROTOC_VERSION=3.9.1

What Hiring Should Look Like

This is definitely not the first time I've written about this topic, but I haven't written formally about it in quite awhile. So I want to revisit why I think technical-position interviewing is so poorly designed, and lay out what I think would be a better process.

I'm just one guy, with a bunch of strong opinions and a bunch of flaws. So take these suggestions with a grain of salt. I'm sure there's a lot of talented, passionate folks with other thoughts, and some are probably a lot more interesting and useful than my own.

But at the same time, I hope you'll set aside the assumptions and status quo of how interviewing is always done. Just because you were hired a certain way, and even if you liked it, doesn't mean that it's a good interview process to repeat.

If you're happy with the way technical interviewing currently works at your company, fine. Just stop, don't read any further. I'm not going to spend any effort trying to convince you otherwise.

	exponentialBackoff(fnFailsSomeTimes, 10, 100, function(result) {
	console.log("the result is", result);
	});

	function exponentialBackoff(fn, max, delay, callback) {
	const result = fn();
	if (result) {
	callback(result);
	} else {
	if (max > 0) {

	{
	"gitlens.advanced.messages": {
	"suppressCommitHasNoPreviousCommitWarning": false,
	"suppressCommitNotFoundWarning": false,
	"suppressShowKeyBindingsNotice": true,
	"suppressFileNotUnderSourceControlWarning": false,
	"suppressGitVersionWarning": false,
	"suppressLineUncommittedWarning": false,
	"suppressNoRepositoryWarning": false,
	"suppressUpdateNotice": false,