Using DI you can register multiple configuration providers with different priorities. What's common is to have an local.appsetting.json for development and have production setup with environment variables. But you can use any combination of providers.
some solid software system specifications. The kind of thing you might get from a client or stakeholder
🤔
In all seriousness, sounds like a fun exercise. Have you tried to contribute to open source? That doesn't mean just bug fixing, many popular projects accept contributions in issue tracking and QA. Many are great ways to get to know a new technology and solve novel problems.
All you folks are crazy not to unit test personal projects. Unit tests don't need to be fancy and exhaustive. A sanity check and having a simple way to execute isolated code is well worth the 15 minutes of setting it up. Heck, just use them as scratch files to try out libraries and APIs. I can't imagine having the kind of time to raw-dog that f12 button and sifting through print() nonsense all night.
I once thought that it might turn into a "one-eyed man is king" situation, but now I'm not even that sure.
What are some things you're trying to accomplish? C# looks very different in the cloud, as a website, in a game engine or on a mobile app.
Procrastination is like getting into the pool for the first time in the morning. Gradual exposure to the cold water is the most painful way to go. The fastest way to get going is to jump in!
I'm sorry, I think ik misinterpreted. To me it sounds liken you could accomplish it with the evaluate expression context in the debugger
Come over to the wonderful world of !csharp@programming.dev. Us dotnet nerds really take this kind of stuff for granted...
You either start saying no to unreasonable demands, or you hire someone that will take the heat for saying yes.
So what we do is, between the first and second interview we have new candidates recreate Twitter over the span of a week. We stress that they can put in as much time into it as you want. By no means does the site need to be functional at all by the second interview. If they spend 30 minutes thinking about it and are able to have a decent conversation, great! 30h assignment is a bit much and a programmer with that kind of time, is a bit of a red flag actually.
The point of the assignment, for me, is not to have some barrier of entry for a candidate. Instead, I use the assignment to:
- Have something to talk about
- See how good they are at structurally dissecting the problem
- Do they get bogged down in details
- In what order do they attack the problem
- Are able to effectively communicate some basic concepts around web-development
- Request sequences
- Authentication
- Database Schemas
- Asses their personality
- Do they want to try some new tech
- Do they polish
- How broad are their technical interests
- Do they do tests, did they host the project, did they do something interesting with UI
- How deep does their knowledge go
- did they use the right tools, do they have experience
- Have room for some hypotheticals
- How would you do it in a team
- what would you do with a month of time
When you look at it like that, the project doesn't really need to be that complicated. A candidate may be able to fake a challenge, but they can't fake an interview.
Access Control
Man, this place definately has the vibe of an old timey BB forum. You recognise people in your replies like you used to. I find that I'm gawking at stats way less and I'm able to just talk to people. Engagement is way less, but maybe that's a good thing.
It's so refreshing. It feels like the old internet