WEBVTT 1 00:00:04.840 --> 00:00:07.370 Hello and welcome to the Haskell Weekly 2 00:00:07.370 --> 00:00:10.290 podcast. I'm your host, Taylor Fausak. I'm 3 00:00:10.290 --> 00:00:13.150 the lead engineer at ITProTV, which is an 4 00:00:13.160 --> 00:00:16.160 e-learning platform for IT professionals with me 5 00:00:16.160 --> 00:00:19.130 today is one of the engineers on my team. Cameron Gera. 6 00:00:19.140 --> 00:00:22.130 Welcome Cam. Hey, man, how's it going? It's going 7 00:00:22.130 --> 00:00:24.900 good. Thanks for being on the show today. Of course, man. 8 00:00:24.910 --> 00:00:27.750 >> Well, you know, it's still October. 9 00:00:27.750 --> 00:00:30.520 We've been doing this podcast again for three 10 00:00:30.520 --> 00:00:33.470 weeks, and we're still in October. Which means 11 00:00:33.470 --> 00:00:36.100 we are still in Hacktoberfest, 12 00:00:36.110 --> 00:00:39.020 which is an awesome opportunity for us to contribute to the 13 00:00:39.020 --> 00:00:41.680 open source world and really just make a 14 00:00:41.680 --> 00:00:44.680 difference in these projects that may not have 15 00:00:44.690 --> 00:00:47.190 as much dev time going into them. So 16 00:00:47.200 --> 00:00:49.990 for us, it gives us a chance to learn as well 17 00:00:49.990 --> 00:00:52.850 as contribute to these projects. Um, so one 18 00:00:52.850 --> 00:00:55.620 awesome project is learn for Haskell, which is put on by 19 00:00:55.620 --> 00:00:58.170 Kowainik. And it's an opportunity for 20 00:00:58.240 --> 00:01:01.170 people to be a part of Hacktoberfest and also learn 21 00:01:01.170 --> 00:01:03.480 haskell at the same time. So if you're 22 00:01:03.490 --> 00:01:06.120 interested, go check it out at learn for 23 00:01:06.120 --> 00:01:09.100 Haskell. I think you can Google that, um you can also check 24 00:01:09.100 --> 00:01:12.050 it out on Kowainik's site. I believe they have 25 00:01:12.050 --> 00:01:14.710 some links as well, but it's a good opportunity for us 26 00:01:14.710 --> 00:01:17.450 to, you know, contribute learn for Haskell 27 00:01:17.460 --> 00:01:20.350 and get a free T shirt. So, you know, we all love free 28 00:01:20.350 --> 00:01:21.370 T shirts around here. 29 00:01:21.640 --> 00:01:24.460 >> Sure do. I'm wearing a free T shirt right now, and it feels great. 30 00:01:24.640 --> 00:01:27.550 >> Yeah, I guess I am. I'm wearing work 31 00:01:27.550 --> 00:01:30.180 t shirt, which is free to me. So that's always 32 00:01:30.180 --> 00:01:33.020 nice. Yeah, awesome. Well, Taylor, what are we 33 00:01:33.020 --> 00:01:34.120 talking about today? 34 00:01:34.130 --> 00:01:36.910 >> Today we are talking about a blog post by 35 00:01:36.910 --> 00:01:39.870 Chris Penner called Silly Job interview 36 00:01:39.870 --> 00:01:42.750 Questions in Haskell If you haven't heard of 37 00:01:42.750 --> 00:01:45.350 him before. Chris Penner is the author of a 38 00:01:45.350 --> 00:01:48.340 book called Optics by example where he does 39 00:01:48.340 --> 00:01:51.080 a deep dive on optics and lenses and 40 00:01:51.080 --> 00:01:53.560 Haskell how to use them. How to get familiar with 41 00:01:53.560 --> 00:01:54.100 them. 42 00:01:54.110 --> 00:01:56.610 >> Yeah, so, you know, he kind of talks 43 00:01:56.610 --> 00:01:58.840 about, you know, the interview 44 00:01:58.850 --> 00:02:01.670 questions that are part of the interview process 45 00:02:01.940 --> 00:02:04.590 and in the interview process. If you're looking for any kind of 46 00:02:04.590 --> 00:02:07.350 job, um, you know, and a tech job in particular, 47 00:02:07.360 --> 00:02:10.000 you're gonna generally have kind of, ah, general 48 00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:12.930 interview kind of understanding who you are. You'll have a culture 49 00:02:12.930 --> 00:02:15.740 fit interview with kind of the team you're gonna be a part of. 50 00:02:15.750 --> 00:02:18.680 And then you'll also have a technical interview where 51 00:02:18.680 --> 00:02:21.590 you can kind of get asked and challenged 52 00:02:21.600 --> 00:02:24.350 in various ways in the various programming 53 00:02:24.350 --> 00:02:27.260 language you may be in contact with in that job role. 54 00:02:27.440 --> 00:02:30.420 Um, and so for a lot of Haskell jobs, you're gonna come across 55 00:02:30.420 --> 00:02:32.610 some of these Haskell 56 00:02:32.620 --> 00:02:35.490 problems and be able to solve them quickly If you 57 00:02:35.490 --> 00:02:38.320 kind of reviewed this blog post. And, you know, I 58 00:02:38.320 --> 00:02:41.000 think he does a great job here of, 59 00:02:41.010 --> 00:02:43.620 you know, kind of giving us the general 60 00:02:43.630 --> 00:02:46.350 idea behind why he made the 61 00:02:46.350 --> 00:02:49.150 decisions he made. And as well as like a good 62 00:02:49.140 --> 00:02:51.870 variety of the questions that you could be asked 63 00:02:52.340 --> 00:02:55.250 and yeah, just just to jump 64 00:02:55.250 --> 00:02:57.610 in the first one was the palindrome, 65 00:02:57.610 --> 00:03:00.400 which, in Haskell I mean, can't get any 66 00:03:00.400 --> 00:03:01.560 easier than that, right Taylor? 67 00:03:01.570 --> 00:03:04.450 >> you sure can't. This is this is so easy 68 00:03:04.450 --> 00:03:07.430 because all the functions you need are in the prelude, and you don't 69 00:03:07.430 --> 00:03:10.430 have to string too many of them together to get an answer. But I 70 00:03:10.430 --> 00:03:13.070 was gonna ask you, Cam, what's your favorite palindrome? 71 00:03:13.240 --> 00:03:16.240 >> Probably race car, which is, you know, kind of 72 00:03:16.240 --> 00:03:19.190 the only one I can think of at the moment. But it's in the also in the 73 00:03:19.190 --> 00:03:22.060 blog post, so you know, it's a 74 00:03:22.060 --> 00:03:24.990 little bit a cop out, but I would say race car's a good one for 75 00:03:24.990 --> 00:03:26.580 me. What about you? 76 00:03:26.590 --> 00:03:29.240 >> I like Taco Cat. It's also short to the 77 00:03:29.240 --> 00:03:31.840 point. I know there are some extremely long 78 00:03:31.850 --> 00:03:34.680 palindromes, but yeah, that's that's besides the 79 00:03:34.680 --> 00:03:37.660 point. Um, so Chris shows a 80 00:03:37.660 --> 00:03:40.400 solution for the palindrome question here, which 81 00:03:40.410 --> 00:03:43.280 I guess if you're not familiar with the Palindrome, it's something that has 82 00:03:43.280 --> 00:03:46.260 the same order of letters, forwards and backwards. So 83 00:03:46.260 --> 00:03:49.000 like racecar as an example r a c 84 00:03:49.000 --> 00:03:51.470 e c a r. That goes the same forwards and 85 00:03:51.470 --> 00:03:53.930 backwards. So the way that he, 86 00:03:53.940 --> 00:03:56.620 uh, solves this problem is by 87 00:03:56.630 --> 00:03:59.350 comparing the original string with the reversed 88 00:03:59.350 --> 00:04:02.120 version of the string. And if they're equal, then it's the same forwards and 89 00:04:02.120 --> 00:04:03.380 backwards Super easy. 90 00:04:03.390 --> 00:04:05.890 >> Yep. Yep. I think that was Ah. Ah, great 91 00:04:05.890 --> 00:04:08.600 solution. Very straight to the point. Um, 92 00:04:08.600 --> 00:04:11.050 and you know, it's not bad when you could get one line of 93 00:04:11.050 --> 00:04:13.540 code solve, you know, quote unquote. The 94 00:04:13.540 --> 00:04:14.850 technical interview, 95 00:04:14.840 --> 00:04:17.760 >> Yeah, especially if you're answering this on like a white board. You know, 96 00:04:17.770 --> 00:04:20.490 if your handwriting's really bad, this one's an easy one to knock out. 97 00:04:20.500 --> 00:04:23.180 >> Yeah, and I think it does provide 98 00:04:23.190 --> 00:04:25.840 for a good ability to explain it to 99 00:04:25.850 --> 00:04:28.830 right. Uh, that's kind of the point of these technical interviews 100 00:04:28.830 --> 00:04:31.680 that you'll be coming across, and for those who have come across it, 101 00:04:31.690 --> 00:04:34.520 you already know it's just about kind of getting your 102 00:04:34.520 --> 00:04:37.450 verbal processing out and allowing you know, the team that you're 103 00:04:37.450 --> 00:04:40.350 gonna be joining to kind of hear and understand and see how you 104 00:04:40.350 --> 00:04:43.180 solve a problem. So he kind of talks and starts 105 00:04:43.180 --> 00:04:46.120 with, you know, the easy one of the palindrome on, and then it kind 106 00:04:46.120 --> 00:04:48.650 of takes another step forward, right? 107 00:04:48.660 --> 00:04:50.350 What's the next one that he talks about? 108 00:04:50.740 --> 00:04:53.710 >> The next question is fizz buzz, and I'm sure a 109 00:04:53.710 --> 00:04:56.670 lot of people are already nodding along because they're familiar with this 110 00:04:56.670 --> 00:04:59.010 one. But if you haven't haven't heard of it 111 00:04:59.010 --> 00:05:01.730 before, the question is where the problem is to 112 00:05:01.730 --> 00:05:04.350 print out the first 100 numbers, so one through 113 00:05:04.350 --> 00:05:07.290 100. But if the number is divisible by 114 00:05:07.290 --> 00:05:09.970 three, you print out the string fizz, 115 00:05:10.150 --> 00:05:13.050 and if it's divisible by five, you print out buzz. 116 00:05:13.440 --> 00:05:16.300 And if it's divisible by both you print out fizz 117 00:05:16.300 --> 00:05:18.910 buzz. So pretty simple problem. 118 00:05:18.910 --> 00:05:21.370 But a surprising number of candidates 119 00:05:21.380 --> 00:05:24.160 can't answer this one. So it's good to see a Haskell solution 120 00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:24.450 here. 121 00:05:24.940 --> 00:05:27.920 >> Yeah, it definitely like when you hear the explanation. It kind of can 122 00:05:27.920 --> 00:05:30.830 make you squirm a little bit. But if you really listen 123 00:05:30.830 --> 00:05:33.770 to the problem, what it's asking, it's not too bad. 124 00:05:33.770 --> 00:05:36.690 And you just gotta, I think with every big problem you got 125 00:05:36.690 --> 00:05:39.450 to solve or any problem you have to solve, you know, you just gotta take one 126 00:05:39.450 --> 00:05:42.370 step at a time, you know, figure out all right, what do I need to 127 00:05:42.370 --> 00:05:45.320 do first? And then you can build on that, And I think Haskell 128 00:05:46.140 --> 00:05:49.050 kind of allows you to do that pretty well for 129 00:05:49.050 --> 00:05:51.560 his solution. He actually takes some time to use 130 00:05:51.560 --> 00:05:54.560 guards, which, if you aren't familiar with guards, you know, 131 00:05:54.560 --> 00:05:57.310 they're kind of a, you know, in line pattern matching per 132 00:05:57.310 --> 00:06:00.220 se, um, and that allow you to, 133 00:06:00.230 --> 00:06:02.820 you know, do some comparison check. 134 00:06:02.830 --> 00:06:05.220 And, you know, if it equals 135 00:06:05.230 --> 00:06:07.850 true, then you you go 136 00:06:07.860 --> 00:06:10.740 proceed to that line of code. Um, and so here 137 00:06:10.740 --> 00:06:13.690 he kind of, you know, goes one step at a time with, you 138 00:06:13.690 --> 00:06:16.510 know, some sort of secondary function that he's gonna iterate over. 139 00:06:16.520 --> 00:06:19.190 You know, this list of 1 to 100 with that? He 140 00:06:19.190 --> 00:06:22.180 does, you know, a check of, you know, the number of 141 00:06:22.180 --> 00:06:24.900 mod three. And number five. If those both equals 142 00:06:24.900 --> 00:06:27.780 zero, then he prints out fizz buzz. If not, you know, 143 00:06:27.780 --> 00:06:30.650 he goes the next case, which the next case, he's doing the 144 00:06:30.840 --> 00:06:33.720 mod three check. So if mod three of that number 145 00:06:33.720 --> 00:06:36.270 equals zero, then it's gonna print out fizz. 146 00:06:36.840 --> 00:06:39.380 Same with five when he's gonna print out buzz. 147 00:06:39.390 --> 00:06:41.670 So you know, he's got these 148 00:06:41.680 --> 00:06:44.340 cases that if they 149 00:06:44.340 --> 00:06:47.280 evaluated, true that, that's what is returned. If 150 00:06:47.280 --> 00:06:50.140 not, none of those cases returned. True, he's just gonna 151 00:06:50.140 --> 00:06:52.860 print out that number. And so it's 152 00:06:52.860 --> 00:06:55.720 pretty straightforward. Um, one interesting thing, though 153 00:06:55.720 --> 00:06:58.600 Taylor is that he decided to use for 154 00:06:58.600 --> 00:07:01.380 underscore from data dot foldable. Where? For 155 00:07:01.380 --> 00:07:04.110 me? I would have probably used just map out of 156 00:07:04.110 --> 00:07:07.060 Prelude. Um, that doesn't you know, it's 157 00:07:07.060 --> 00:07:09.570 pretty much the same as for underscore, but with 158 00:07:09.680 --> 00:07:11.860 reversed arguments, right? 159 00:07:12.440 --> 00:07:15.140 >> Yeah, In fact, for is defined as 160 00:07:15.140 --> 00:07:17.980 flip map. So the fact that he reached for 161 00:07:17.980 --> 00:07:20.860 for here suggests to me that he's trying to reach out to 162 00:07:20.860 --> 00:07:23.460 an audience that may not be familiar with Haskell to write code that 163 00:07:23.460 --> 00:07:26.160 looks a little more imperative, even though, really, behind the 164 00:07:26.160 --> 00:07:29.100 scenes. It's still that functional goodness that we we 165 00:07:29.100 --> 00:07:32.040 all know and love, Um, and a quick note on what you were talking about 166 00:07:32.040 --> 00:07:34.370 with the guards. One of things that's really great about them is they 167 00:07:34.370 --> 00:07:37.030 match top to bottom. So, like you were saying, you 168 00:07:37.030 --> 00:07:39.970 can process these and you add 169 00:07:39.970 --> 00:07:42.920 the cases as you go by and you can think, Okay, I'll start with mod 170 00:07:42.920 --> 00:07:45.890 three and then mod five oh wait. I forgot about mod three and five, So 171 00:07:45.890 --> 00:07:48.800 I'll go put that one at the top. So it's just like an if else chain 172 00:07:48.810 --> 00:07:50.870 in a regular imperative programming language. 173 00:07:51.240 --> 00:07:54.240 >> Yep. And I think a lot of these functions, you know, as we 174 00:07:54.240 --> 00:07:56.970 continue to talk about them, you know, would be good for 175 00:07:56.970 --> 00:07:59.940 people to kind of go and reason about yourself and try to solve 176 00:07:59.940 --> 00:08:02.750 it. Uh, maybe even before reading this blog post 177 00:08:02.750 --> 00:08:05.540 to just kind of see if you can solve it. Obviously, we're 178 00:08:05.540 --> 00:08:08.100 talking about it here. So you have a general idea of maybe what? To 179 00:08:08.100 --> 00:08:10.940 do, But it could be good to kind of just put that 180 00:08:10.940 --> 00:08:13.870 into practice, Um, and just kind of create that 181 00:08:13.880 --> 00:08:16.840 quick little solution, um, that you can kind 182 00:08:16.840 --> 00:08:19.800 of just have in your back pocket. So he then 183 00:08:19.800 --> 00:08:22.680 moves on, obviously to, um, something 184 00:08:22.680 --> 00:08:25.650 else, Something else. Even more complicated. And he 185 00:08:25.660 --> 00:08:28.330 it's called sum up to N numbers, 186 00:08:28.340 --> 00:08:31.270 which when I first passed over 187 00:08:31.270 --> 00:08:34.270 it, I was like, Okay, like, I get that. I wasn't 188 00:08:34.270 --> 00:08:37.270 sure how he reasoned about, You know, obviously, I 189 00:08:37.270 --> 00:08:39.930 have to read the full question. That's part of solving these 190 00:08:39.930 --> 00:08:42.650 problems. You know, you have to read the full question. 191 00:08:42.660 --> 00:08:45.560 Um, after my second pass, I realized, 192 00:08:45.570 --> 00:08:48.550 you know, it's always just a combination of three letters or 193 00:08:48.560 --> 00:08:51.150 no letters. Numbers. I mean, numbers, 194 00:08:51.540 --> 00:08:54.270 right. And that is 195 00:08:54.640 --> 00:08:57.640 I was like, OK, cool. I'm gonna be taking a list of numbers 196 00:08:57.650 --> 00:09:00.450 and trying to find combinations of three numbers 197 00:09:00.450 --> 00:09:02.830 that equal some total, some 198 00:09:02.830 --> 00:09:05.300 specific total. Um, And 199 00:09:05.300 --> 00:09:08.050 so you know, if I'm gonna kind of attack this 200 00:09:08.050 --> 00:09:10.880 problem before we move on to the solution like I'm gonna think. 201 00:09:10.890 --> 00:09:13.860 Okay, I've got a list of numbers 202 00:09:14.240 --> 00:09:17.070 and I need to find all the combinations 203 00:09:17.080 --> 00:09:19.990 of all combinations of 204 00:09:19.990 --> 00:09:22.730 these numbers that include three, right. 205 00:09:22.740 --> 00:09:25.510 So I need to chunk them into groups of three 206 00:09:25.520 --> 00:09:28.430 and every combination of that. And so 207 00:09:28.430 --> 00:09:31.020 that's kind of what I would attack first, 208 00:09:31.030 --> 00:09:33.570 Which I think he actually ended up tackling as 209 00:09:33.570 --> 00:09:36.520 Well, on, then I would have come back and, you know, 210 00:09:36.520 --> 00:09:39.460 tried to iterate over that new list 211 00:09:39.470 --> 00:09:42.290 of lists and find, you know, find the sum of 212 00:09:42.290 --> 00:09:45.010 each list and see if it equals the total which 213 00:09:45.010 --> 00:09:47.560 actually ends up being what he he does. 214 00:09:47.570 --> 00:09:50.530 So it sounds like I'm just copping out here 215 00:09:50.530 --> 00:09:53.340 and, you know, using his solution. But when I first read the 216 00:09:53.340 --> 00:09:55.940 problem, I didn't look at the solution, and that's kind of my 217 00:09:55.940 --> 00:09:58.790 process, uh, that I was would have proceeded 218 00:09:58.790 --> 00:10:01.780 with, but obviously he has a solution right there. So 219 00:10:01.780 --> 00:10:04.260 I just kept reading. And there it was. 220 00:10:04.270 --> 00:10:07.130 >> Yeah, that's a good solution to this problem because you're breaking it 221 00:10:07.130 --> 00:10:09.640 down into components, and I think that's 222 00:10:09.640 --> 00:10:12.310 starting with the more complicated component. 223 00:10:12.320 --> 00:10:15.280 Namely, coming up with the combinations of the elements of the 224 00:10:15.280 --> 00:10:18.150 input list is a good way to go because the second part 225 00:10:18.340 --> 00:10:21.330 of figuring out if a list sums to 226 00:10:21.330 --> 00:10:24.320 some particular number and then including or excluding it based 227 00:10:24.320 --> 00:10:27.270 on that is pretty easy. So, you know, once you've 228 00:10:27.270 --> 00:10:29.940 got that nice head of steam built up from doing this 229 00:10:29.940 --> 00:10:32.800 hard combination stuff, then you finish it off 230 00:10:32.800 --> 00:10:35.790 with a nice and easy dessert of just figuring out if these add up to the right 231 00:10:35.790 --> 00:10:36.100 thing. 232 00:10:36.110 --> 00:10:38.940 >> Yeah, an interesting thing. And, you know, Haskell 233 00:10:38.940 --> 00:10:41.240 is there is something called 234 00:10:41.240 --> 00:10:43.580 permutations, um, a function called 235 00:10:43.580 --> 00:10:46.480 permutations that will take a list and give you all of its 236 00:10:46.480 --> 00:10:48.580 permutations. But that's not quite the 237 00:10:48.580 --> 00:10:51.470 combinations. And, you know, if you look 238 00:10:51.480 --> 00:10:53.980 in Hackage or Hoogle for 239 00:10:53.980 --> 00:10:56.780 combinations, you're probably not gonna find one 240 00:10:56.790 --> 00:10:59.650 in, you know, a standard library. You may find one in 241 00:10:59.650 --> 00:11:02.460 some specialized package, but you know 242 00:11:02.460 --> 00:11:05.270 there's not going to generally be an easy 243 00:11:05.280 --> 00:11:08.080 combinations function you could reach for. And so he 244 00:11:08.080 --> 00:11:10.930 takes the time here and kind of explains and 245 00:11:10.940 --> 00:11:13.780 how he would have created a combinations 246 00:11:13.780 --> 00:11:16.430 function. Uh, you know, obviously, recursion is a 247 00:11:16.430 --> 00:11:19.200 big thing, you know, functions calling themselves 248 00:11:19.200 --> 00:11:22.140 until they find the solution and then returning that solution. It 249 00:11:22.140 --> 00:11:25.090 was nice to see all these. You know, this solution. He has very good 250 00:11:25.090 --> 00:11:28.070 comments and stuff like that. Uh, but could 251 00:11:28.070 --> 00:11:30.930 you kind of explain a little bit more on, like, what's happening in 252 00:11:30.930 --> 00:11:32.810 this combinations function? 253 00:11:32.820 --> 00:11:35.750 >> Sure. So this whole problem is 254 00:11:35.750 --> 00:11:38.380 quite a bit more complicated than the fizz buzz one and the 255 00:11:38.380 --> 00:11:41.150 combinations. Part of it, like I mentioned earlier, is definitely the 256 00:11:41.150 --> 00:11:43.360 more complicated sub problem. 257 00:11:43.840 --> 00:11:46.610 But when you break it down into the 258 00:11:46.620 --> 00:11:49.600 three kind of base cases you have to cover, 259 00:11:49.610 --> 00:11:52.450 it turns out to be surprisingly simple. So 260 00:11:52.940 --> 00:11:55.850 the combinations function as he's given it 261 00:11:55.860 --> 00:11:58.630 gives you, or it takes a number 262 00:11:58.640 --> 00:12:01.270 as of like, how many things to 263 00:12:01.270 --> 00:12:04.270 include per group. And then it takes your input list with 264 00:12:04.270 --> 00:12:07.120 all of the things in it, and you output a list of lists. So a 265 00:12:07.120 --> 00:12:09.860 list of combinations of things. And, 266 00:12:10.240 --> 00:12:13.170 as is typical with implementing recursive 267 00:12:13.170 --> 00:12:16.090 functions, you start with the base case. So the base cases you're asking 268 00:12:16.090 --> 00:12:19.000 for zero things. There's exactly one way 269 00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:21.960 to give you zero things. So you return a list 270 00:12:21.970 --> 00:12:24.150 with the empty list as it's only element, 271 00:12:25.440 --> 00:12:28.340 and then we'll gloss over the recursive call for right 272 00:12:28.340 --> 00:12:31.320 now. But the other base case is where 273 00:12:31.330 --> 00:12:34.030 you're asking for a combination of some 274 00:12:34.030 --> 00:12:36.770 number of things. But your input list is 275 00:12:36.770 --> 00:12:39.300 empty, and in that case you cannot provide any 276 00:12:39.300 --> 00:12:42.300 combinations. So you return the empty list. So with those 277 00:12:42.300 --> 00:12:45.280 two base cases under our belt it's pretty easy then, to 278 00:12:45.280 --> 00:12:47.850 go on to the, um, recursive 279 00:12:47.850 --> 00:12:50.440 step where what you're doing is 280 00:12:50.450 --> 00:12:53.360 grabbing one element off the front of that 281 00:12:53.360 --> 00:12:54.870 list and 282 00:12:55.740 --> 00:12:58.220 consing it. So like making it the first element 283 00:12:58.230 --> 00:13:00.680 of, uh, the recursive call 284 00:13:00.680 --> 00:13:03.630 onto the rest of the list for one 285 00:13:03.630 --> 00:13:06.580 less element. So let's say you're looking at two a list of two 286 00:13:06.580 --> 00:13:09.510 elements, and you grab the first one and then for every 287 00:13:09.510 --> 00:13:12.480 other element, in the list you or every other combination of the list. 288 00:13:12.480 --> 00:13:14.460 Rather, you add that element onto the front, 289 00:13:15.140 --> 00:13:17.760 um, and then in addition to that, 290 00:13:17.770 --> 00:13:20.750 you do another recursive call. So this combinations 291 00:13:20.750 --> 00:13:23.270 function every step. 292 00:13:23.280 --> 00:13:26.070 It calls itself twice. So it's very 293 00:13:26.070 --> 00:13:28.950 recursive. Um, yeah, it's It's a little 294 00:13:28.950 --> 00:13:31.600 difficult to just explain without looking at the code. 295 00:13:31.610 --> 00:13:34.420 But again, with recursive functions, it's 296 00:13:34.420 --> 00:13:37.150 important to focus on those base cases. And then, 297 00:13:37.160 --> 00:13:40.060 uh, the recursive step will hopefully be clearer because you want to 298 00:13:40.070 --> 00:13:41.460 get to those base cases. 299 00:13:42.140 --> 00:13:45.130 >> Nice. Awesome. Well, I appreciate you taking that time. Yeah. Like like you 300 00:13:45.130 --> 00:13:47.920 said, it's a little hard to explain code that's 301 00:13:47.920 --> 00:13:50.810 written because, you know, it's a little easier just to 302 00:13:50.810 --> 00:13:53.450 see it and kind of process that way. But, 303 00:13:53.940 --> 00:13:56.910 you know, a classic thing that happens in 304 00:13:56.910 --> 00:13:59.760 these technical interviews is they say 305 00:13:59.770 --> 00:14:02.560 Okay, well, now this part's gonna change 306 00:14:02.940 --> 00:14:05.820 and, you know, say, for this function, we want 307 00:14:05.830 --> 00:14:08.730 all combinations of any length which sum 308 00:14:08.740 --> 00:14:10.980 to the target number, you know? 309 00:14:10.990 --> 00:14:13.890 What are you going to do there? What? What's gonna have to 310 00:14:13.890 --> 00:14:16.870 change in our current implementation to make 311 00:14:16.870 --> 00:14:19.780 this work right? I mean, we're in Haskell. So is there something 312 00:14:19.790 --> 00:14:22.520 fun and easy and quick we can do to make this work? 313 00:14:22.530 --> 00:14:25.450 >> I don't know. If it were me, I would probably be scrambling in the 314 00:14:25.450 --> 00:14:28.160 interview. And I would just say, Take the length of the input 315 00:14:28.160 --> 00:14:30.770 list and call combinations for each 316 00:14:30.780 --> 00:14:33.200 zero up to that length. And then, boom, you've got all the 317 00:14:33.200 --> 00:14:36.190 combinations. Did you have something else in mind? No, 318 00:14:36.190 --> 00:14:39.100 that's perfect, because that's the answer. Alright. I 319 00:14:39.100 --> 00:14:39.650 passed 320 00:14:40.340 --> 00:14:43.240 >> nice threw that one threw that one at you, man. You 321 00:14:43.240 --> 00:14:46.120 weren't quite ready for it. But, you know, I think you figured you could handle it. 322 00:14:46.130 --> 00:14:47.270 You're pretty. light on your feet. 323 00:14:47.740 --> 00:14:50.710 >> I think we've got a good handle on that question. Should we move on to the 324 00:14:50.710 --> 00:14:51.340 next one? 325 00:14:51.350 --> 00:14:54.060 >> I'd say so. Yeah. Why not? So we've 326 00:14:54.060 --> 00:14:56.340 got check if two strings 327 00:14:56.350 --> 00:14:58.060 are anagrams. 328 00:14:58.940 --> 00:15:00.930 Aww, anagrams. 329 00:15:00.940 --> 00:15:02.470 >> And what is an anagram? I 330 00:15:02.470 --> 00:15:03.470 >> don't know. What's an anagram? 331 00:15:04.240 --> 00:15:06.850 Actually, I believe it's 332 00:15:06.860 --> 00:15:09.500 two words that have the same 333 00:15:09.500 --> 00:15:11.790 letters. Am I right. Or am I right? 334 00:15:11.800 --> 00:15:14.170 >> I think you're right. But there's 335 00:15:14.170 --> 00:15:16.900 additional wrinkle there where they have to have the same 336 00:15:16.900 --> 00:15:19.790 number of the same letters. So, like, you know, if 337 00:15:19.800 --> 00:15:22.660 it has two 'S's in it, you gotta have two 'S's you can't just 338 00:15:22.660 --> 00:15:23.650 have an 'S' 339 00:15:23.840 --> 00:15:26.810 >> see Okay. Yeah, that that definitely is a little bit 340 00:15:26.810 --> 00:15:29.780 of a wrinkle. But yet again, Haskell 341 00:15:29.780 --> 00:15:32.680 comes to the rescue. In my opinion, I think it's, 342 00:15:32.680 --> 00:15:35.680 ah, quite a pleasant solution. 343 00:15:35.680 --> 00:15:38.650 They're here. They're here that he created that actually ended 344 00:15:38.650 --> 00:15:41.650 up only being two lines of code A type signature 345 00:15:42.040 --> 00:15:43.570 and a function definition. 346 00:15:44.140 --> 00:15:47.090 >> Yeah, it's very short. And it's similar to the palindrome 347 00:15:47.090 --> 00:15:49.570 question. You know, the first one. Because 348 00:15:49.580 --> 00:15:52.460 everything we need Well, we could solve this 349 00:15:52.460 --> 00:15:55.420 using just the prelude, but he actually reaches for this 350 00:15:55.420 --> 00:15:58.370 nice higher order function that's available from the data 351 00:15:58.370 --> 00:16:00.920 dot function module. And the function is called 352 00:16:00.930 --> 00:16:03.880 on, and it lets you take a binary 353 00:16:03.880 --> 00:16:06.050 function in this case equals 354 00:16:06.440 --> 00:16:09.270 and apply it by first applying another 355 00:16:09.270 --> 00:16:12.270 function to both arguments and then applying that operator. So in 356 00:16:12.270 --> 00:16:15.240 this case, we're calling equals. But before we do that, we wanna call 357 00:16:15.240 --> 00:16:18.210 sort on both of our arguments. And why is it that we wanna 358 00:16:18.210 --> 00:16:19.190 call sort Cam? 359 00:16:19.200 --> 00:16:21.970 >> Well, because obviously we want to get those 360 00:16:21.980 --> 00:16:24.190 letters to be in the same order and then do a 361 00:16:24.190 --> 00:16:26.500 comparison of those lists, 362 00:16:26.740 --> 00:16:29.720 right? And if those lists are equal we return 363 00:16:29.720 --> 00:16:32.460 true. If not, we bail out. And the 364 00:16:32.470 --> 00:16:35.380 awesome thing about Haskell, too, is that because it's 365 00:16:35.380 --> 00:16:38.380 lazy, as soon as it finds a case where it's no longer 366 00:16:38.380 --> 00:16:41.310 equal, these two lists are no longer equal. It bails 367 00:16:41.310 --> 00:16:44.080 out, so that saves you a little bit on. You know, 368 00:16:44.090 --> 00:16:46.990 the performance issue um and you know this 369 00:16:46.990 --> 00:16:49.430 isn't necessarily the most performant code 370 00:16:49.440 --> 00:16:52.370 anyone's ever written, but it definitely will solve 371 00:16:52.370 --> 00:16:55.110 the problem in a pinch. Um, you know, 372 00:16:55.110 --> 00:16:58.090 because obviously, sorting a list isn't 373 00:16:58.090 --> 00:17:00.460 the most effective 374 00:17:00.840 --> 00:17:03.700 way to well. It's a very 375 00:17:03.700 --> 00:17:06.410 effective way to do comparisons of something, 376 00:17:06.410 --> 00:17:09.350 something that can be considered a list. But it also 377 00:17:09.360 --> 00:17:12.220 has a bigger notation of N 378 00:17:12.220 --> 00:17:14.890 log N which it's a little longer 379 00:17:14.890 --> 00:17:16.770 than you know some people want to deal with. 380 00:17:17.240 --> 00:17:20.120 >> This is something people often point to as a upside of 381 00:17:20.120 --> 00:17:22.590 laziness by default, where you can have 382 00:17:22.600 --> 00:17:25.500 a sort function that lazily produces 383 00:17:25.500 --> 00:17:27.790 its output and some other function that 384 00:17:27.790 --> 00:17:30.530 lazily consumes its input, 385 00:17:30.540 --> 00:17:33.460 and the sort function is only going to do as much 386 00:17:33.460 --> 00:17:36.240 work as is required to give 387 00:17:36.240 --> 00:17:39.050 enough stuff to that other function to use. So in this 388 00:17:39.050 --> 00:17:41.770 case, equals is the function that's consuming the output of 389 00:17:41.770 --> 00:17:44.730 sort. So if on the very first letter equals says, 390 00:17:44.730 --> 00:17:47.700 well, these aren't the same, then we're not an anagram. So I'm just going 391 00:17:47.700 --> 00:17:50.700 to stop there. Sort isn't gonna bother sorting 392 00:17:50.700 --> 00:17:53.670 the entire rest of the list. Uh, it 393 00:17:53.670 --> 00:17:56.370 might, depending on the shape of the input list and everything, but in 394 00:17:56.370 --> 00:17:59.240 general, it probably won't. So that that's super nice. You don't have to 395 00:17:59.240 --> 00:18:02.160 do any fancy, like early return type stuff or anything like 396 00:18:02.160 --> 00:18:03.460 that. It just It just does it. 397 00:18:04.340 --> 00:18:07.160 >> So nice. So nice. Um, well, yeah. 398 00:18:07.170 --> 00:18:09.960 Cool. Well, the solution that he kind of 399 00:18:09.960 --> 00:18:12.800 links to that was the inspiration for this question. 400 00:18:12.810 --> 00:18:15.770 Yeah, some java solution. That was 401 00:18:16.240 --> 00:18:18.990 a lot of lines of code. Um, you know, 402 00:18:18.990 --> 00:18:21.480 and and, you know, he mentions here. He doesn't 403 00:18:21.480 --> 00:18:24.320 know which one's faster. Um, you know, he 404 00:18:24.320 --> 00:18:26.940 imagines the Java one's probably faster because of some of the 405 00:18:26.940 --> 00:18:29.660 considerations they did, but he didn't 406 00:18:29.670 --> 00:18:31.970 benchmark them, so he doesn't really know. 407 00:18:31.980 --> 00:18:34.780 Um, so I mean, could be curious to 408 00:18:34.780 --> 00:18:37.380 see if lazy Haskell 409 00:18:37.380 --> 00:18:39.980 evaluation, you know, allows for the 410 00:18:39.980 --> 00:18:42.910 same benchmarks. Um, that 411 00:18:42.910 --> 00:18:45.540 he you know, he that would come from this java solution 412 00:18:45.540 --> 00:18:47.870 that is mentioned. Um 413 00:18:48.540 --> 00:18:51.230 well, cool. Yeah, I think that kind of wraps up anagram 414 00:18:51.230 --> 00:18:53.850 problem pretty, pretty cleanly 415 00:18:54.240 --> 00:18:56.160 and allows us to, you know, 416 00:18:56.840 --> 00:18:59.580 know how to do some quick 417 00:18:59.580 --> 00:19:02.400 comparisons. Um, you know, obviously the 418 00:19:02.410 --> 00:19:05.370 reverse. You know, the palindrome is another kind of 419 00:19:05.380 --> 00:19:08.170 string comparison, and then that these anagram wants to string 420 00:19:08.170 --> 00:19:10.930 comparison. So, you know, these things in 421 00:19:10.930 --> 00:19:13.920 Haskell aren't too difficult to deal with because of, you know, 422 00:19:13.930 --> 00:19:16.350 the built in functionality, the laziness, the, 423 00:19:16.740 --> 00:19:19.280 uh, just general ease of 424 00:19:19.280 --> 00:19:22.150 composition, even, you know, allows us not to have to 425 00:19:22.150 --> 00:19:24.990 have too much boilerplate and, uh, too 426 00:19:24.990 --> 00:19:27.500 much code, but yeah, so I think that's 427 00:19:27.500 --> 00:19:30.220 cool. Then they have one more that we're gonna 428 00:19:30.220 --> 00:19:33.220 quickly talk on. No, we have 429 00:19:33.230 --> 00:19:35.210 two more that we were quickly talking. 430 00:19:35.220 --> 00:19:37.260 Apologize. Um, 431 00:19:37.640 --> 00:19:40.520 we're gonna touch quickly on them. So just not 432 00:19:40.520 --> 00:19:43.320 too long. Because I would love for us to kind of get a little work, you 433 00:19:43.320 --> 00:19:46.260 know, chat about our experience and maybe some 434 00:19:46.260 --> 00:19:49.000 other things you could do to practice, um, Haskell 435 00:19:49.000 --> 00:19:51.990 and be able to be prepared for an interview like this. But 436 00:19:51.990 --> 00:19:54.940 there's a Min max problem. And then he 437 00:19:54.940 --> 00:19:57.610 also talks about the word frequency 438 00:19:57.610 --> 00:20:00.370 problem. So, Taylor, would you 439 00:20:00.380 --> 00:20:03.270 give us a quick synopsis of one 440 00:20:03.270 --> 00:20:04.470 or both of these? 441 00:20:04.480 --> 00:20:07.210 >> I'd be happy to. So the Min and Max problem 442 00:20:07.220 --> 00:20:09.910 is given a list of things that can be 443 00:20:09.910 --> 00:20:12.520 compared. Return me a tuple with the 444 00:20:12.520 --> 00:20:15.380 greatest element in them and the least element in them, or 445 00:20:15.380 --> 00:20:18.350 the minimum and the maximum. The immediate solution that 446 00:20:18.350 --> 00:20:20.880 comes to mind is the one he goes for first year, which is 447 00:20:21.640 --> 00:20:24.270 make a tuple call minimum on one of them and 448 00:20:24.270 --> 00:20:27.220 maximum sorry minimum on the input list and maximum on the input 449 00:20:27.220 --> 00:20:30.220 list. And that works great, has some downsides. 450 00:20:30.230 --> 00:20:33.130 In particular, it will walk over the list 451 00:20:33.140 --> 00:20:35.670 twice, once to look for the min and wants to look for the max. 452 00:20:35.680 --> 00:20:38.560 And if your input list is empty, it's gonna explode. 453 00:20:38.540 --> 00:20:41.540 So he spends some time fixing 454 00:20:41.540 --> 00:20:44.180 up some of those issues, which I think is great, and 455 00:20:44.640 --> 00:20:47.550 it's worth pointing out that he's able to use fold 456 00:20:47.550 --> 00:20:49.890 map here in some of the interim solutions 457 00:20:49.890 --> 00:20:52.550 because there's actually monoids for expressing the 458 00:20:52.550 --> 00:20:55.430 minimum or maximum element. And so, if you wrap everything 459 00:20:55.430 --> 00:20:58.350 up in those you can fold map everything together. If you want to 460 00:20:58.360 --> 00:21:01.190 learn more about monoids, go listen to our previous podcast, where 461 00:21:01.200 --> 00:21:04.170 we get drunk on monoids. Hmm. And then 462 00:21:04.170 --> 00:21:06.650 the other final problem is about word 463 00:21:06.650 --> 00:21:09.420 frequency, and this one, like the 464 00:21:09.420 --> 00:21:12.410 sum up to N Problem is a little more complicated. There's 465 00:21:12.410 --> 00:21:15.000 more moving pieces involved, but 466 00:21:15.000 --> 00:21:17.740 fortunately again, Haskell kind of saves us here. It's not in the 467 00:21:17.740 --> 00:21:20.630 prelude. It's not in the base library, but it isn't a boot 468 00:21:20.630 --> 00:21:23.430 library called containers. And in there there's 469 00:21:23.430 --> 00:21:26.080 a data structure for maps. And that's what he reaches for here 470 00:21:26.080 --> 00:21:28.910 to take an input list and then 471 00:21:28.910 --> 00:21:31.820 build a map where the key is a word in 472 00:21:31.820 --> 00:21:34.560 there, and the value is how often it shows up. 473 00:21:35.240 --> 00:21:37.670 And this is something that we do so 474 00:21:37.670 --> 00:21:40.610 often in, you know, interview code in real 475 00:21:40.610 --> 00:21:43.320 code. I'm kind of surprised there's not a function in containers 476 00:21:43.320 --> 00:21:46.240 already to do this, not specifically for strings, but just for 477 00:21:46.240 --> 00:21:48.990 anything to count up the frequencies. So maybe I'll open a PR. 478 00:21:49.220 --> 00:21:51.350 And get some credit toward Hacktoberfest for doing that. 479 00:21:51.840 --> 00:21:54.830 Hmm. That could be cool. Yeah, and 480 00:21:54.830 --> 00:21:57.770 then, really the only other thing to point out about this 481 00:21:57.770 --> 00:22:00.750 word frequency things since we're blazing through it right now. Is 482 00:22:00.750 --> 00:22:03.400 that last week we talked about how maps When they 483 00:22:03.400 --> 00:22:06.200 union together, they're left biased. 484 00:22:06.200 --> 00:22:09.200 So it will just drop the value from the right one. And that's why 485 00:22:09.200 --> 00:22:11.770 here he has to use this union with 486 00:22:11.770 --> 00:22:14.730 function to say no. Don't just drop one of those values. In 487 00:22:14.730 --> 00:22:17.690 fact, combine them together and use addition to combine them together. So we're 488 00:22:17.690 --> 00:22:19.460 counting how often this shows up. 489 00:22:20.040 --> 00:22:22.980 >> Yeah, And I looked at this code and I was like, I feel 490 00:22:22.980 --> 00:22:25.550 like I've written this for, you know, at some 491 00:22:25.550 --> 00:22:27.990 point whether it be in our actual code 492 00:22:27.990 --> 00:22:30.180 or, you know, when I personally been 493 00:22:30.180 --> 00:22:33.030 practicing my Haskell knowledge, which, you 494 00:22:33.030 --> 00:22:35.910 know, um, I think, actually, the great segue into our 495 00:22:35.910 --> 00:22:38.700 next kind of topic, which is, you know, some other tools to 496 00:22:38.700 --> 00:22:41.270 practice with for us and me 497 00:22:41.270 --> 00:22:44.140 personally, I've used, you know, code wars 498 00:22:44.150 --> 00:22:46.990 and exercism and advent of 499 00:22:46.990 --> 00:22:49.490 code to kind of, you know, 500 00:22:49.490 --> 00:22:52.270 solve various problems in Haskell. Uh, the 501 00:22:52.270 --> 00:22:55.090 cool thing about these platforms is that you can, 502 00:22:55.100 --> 00:22:57.940 you know, choose a language maybe you're more familiar with. 503 00:22:57.950 --> 00:23:00.560 There's a lot of languages and 504 00:23:00.540 --> 00:23:03.530 these and even advent of code. You can pick whatever language you want. 505 00:23:03.540 --> 00:23:06.260 You could do it and then Excel spreadsheet. If you could figure out the 506 00:23:06.260 --> 00:23:09.240 logic for that. And you know, I think that's 507 00:23:09.250 --> 00:23:12.220 really nice to have because then you 508 00:23:12.220 --> 00:23:15.030 know you can reason a reason in 509 00:23:15.030 --> 00:23:17.950 a in a way you already understand. And then you 510 00:23:17.950 --> 00:23:20.830 can, you know, go to the language you're learning 511 00:23:20.840 --> 00:23:23.810 and apply it the knowledge you know there and see 512 00:23:23.810 --> 00:23:26.210 how they compare. And, you know, 513 00:23:26.220 --> 00:23:29.190 there all the questions there's wide 514 00:23:29.190 --> 00:23:32.110 range code wars is what we're using 515 00:23:32.120 --> 00:23:34.940 more recently where you know, there's, you know, 516 00:23:34.950 --> 00:23:37.440 one to eight kyu with one being the most 517 00:23:37.440 --> 00:23:40.300 difficult and eight being, you know, relatively 518 00:23:40.300 --> 00:23:43.230 simple. But it allows you to kind of get your feet 519 00:23:43.230 --> 00:23:45.960 wet and reason about problems 520 00:23:46.640 --> 00:23:49.380 kind of quickly. And then once you've kind of created a 521 00:23:49.380 --> 00:23:52.350 solution, even if it might be a may not be perfect. 522 00:23:52.350 --> 00:23:55.300 You can submit it and see other people's solutions, 523 00:23:55.300 --> 00:23:58.200 and you can kind of see like Okay, yeah, that makes sense. 524 00:23:58.200 --> 00:24:00.990 I see where they did this a little bit 525 00:24:00.990 --> 00:24:03.560 better and then. You can, 526 00:24:03.940 --> 00:24:06.870 you know, edit it, or you can comment on other people's You can 527 00:24:06.880 --> 00:24:09.260 up both. There's, you know, say, Oh, yeah, That was really 528 00:24:09.260 --> 00:24:12.240 clever. And. People can give you feedback on yours as well. 529 00:24:12.240 --> 00:24:15.180 So I think for us, that's been a really good 530 00:24:15.180 --> 00:24:18.060 one. Um, but I think Taylor, I would love for you to talk a 531 00:24:18.060 --> 00:24:20.930 little bit more about advent of code because I know you've done that 532 00:24:20.930 --> 00:24:23.720 for quite a few years now, I 533 00:24:23.730 --> 00:24:26.380 get through, like, five days, and I'm like, I can't 534 00:24:26.380 --> 00:24:28.960 spend four hours on solving this problem. 535 00:24:29.340 --> 00:24:32.310 >> Advent of code is a ton of fun for those that haven't 536 00:24:32.310 --> 00:24:35.120 heard of it before. It is a yearly programming 537 00:24:35.120 --> 00:24:37.890 challenge leading up to Christmas, where you get a 538 00:24:37.890 --> 00:24:40.870 new problem every day and I forget 539 00:24:40.870 --> 00:24:43.840 when exactly they drop. It's something, uh, not very 540 00:24:43.840 --> 00:24:46.740 convenient for us here on the east coast of the US It's 541 00:24:46.740 --> 00:24:49.530 like midnight UTC or something. So I'm not waking up at 4 542 00:24:49.530 --> 00:24:52.430 a.m. To go to a programming puzzle because they have 543 00:24:52.430 --> 00:24:55.400 a leader board where you can compete against everyone else in the world to see 544 00:24:55.400 --> 00:24:58.310 who does it the quickest. I'm not really in it for the 545 00:24:58.320 --> 00:25:01.290 competition side of it, but it's a good, 546 00:25:01.300 --> 00:25:04.200 interesting mix of problems that build on each 547 00:25:04.200 --> 00:25:07.140 other so often, even if it's not actually 548 00:25:07.140 --> 00:25:09.580 like you use part of the solution for the next solution. They're 549 00:25:09.580 --> 00:25:12.260 thematically related, where they use similar 550 00:25:12.270 --> 00:25:15.230 concepts for solutions. But 551 00:25:15.230 --> 00:25:17.990 there's a very big community around it. And for all of the 552 00:25:17.990 --> 00:25:20.840 problems, the solution that you submit is 553 00:25:20.850 --> 00:25:23.600 some simple text value, so you can solve it with 554 00:25:23.610 --> 00:25:26.550 anything that you want. Like you mentioned Cam. You could do an Excel 555 00:25:26.550 --> 00:25:29.420 spreadsheet or with pencil and paper. And this is 556 00:25:29.420 --> 00:25:32.180 really nice because it gives you the flexibility to say, Well, 557 00:25:32.190 --> 00:25:35.140 maybe I don't know how to solve this in Haskell yet, but I 558 00:25:35.140 --> 00:25:38.040 do know how I would solve it in Java or Python or 559 00:25:38.040 --> 00:25:41.040 whatever language I used before. So I'm going to do it there and 560 00:25:41.040 --> 00:25:43.770 then show that I can come up with the right 561 00:25:43.770 --> 00:25:46.510 solution and then figure out how to convert it over or 562 00:25:46.520 --> 00:25:49.180 just go look at other people's solutions and 563 00:25:49.190 --> 00:25:52.130 try to understand them and see what they're doing. Because maybe I wouldn't have been 564 00:25:52.130 --> 00:25:54.910 able to get there myself. Um, but yeah. 565 00:25:54.910 --> 00:25:56.690 Advent of code, super fun. 566 00:25:56.700 --> 00:25:59.540 >> You know, I was gonna say, I think I'm gonna start submitting 567 00:25:59.540 --> 00:26:02.460 some, uh, Excel spreadsheets as PR's into our code 568 00:26:02.460 --> 00:26:05.450 base. So I mean, it solves the problem, 569 00:26:05.450 --> 00:26:05.920 right? 570 00:26:05.930 --> 00:26:08.810 >> It does. You can submit those, but be ready for 571 00:26:08.810 --> 00:26:09.690 them to be rejected. 572 00:26:09.700 --> 00:26:12.490 >> Okay, that's understandable, but 573 00:26:12.490 --> 00:26:15.240 yeah, I think I think those are other tools that we can 574 00:26:15.240 --> 00:26:18.090 use to prepare for, you know, thinking 575 00:26:18.090 --> 00:26:21.080 quick on our feet because that's kind of what the interview process is all 576 00:26:21.080 --> 00:26:23.910 about is alright. I'm thrown an issue. How 577 00:26:23.910 --> 00:26:26.690 do I create some resemblance of a 578 00:26:26.690 --> 00:26:29.260 solution in a five minute window. 579 00:26:29.640 --> 00:26:32.160 And the more you expose yourself to 580 00:26:32.160 --> 00:26:34.750 difficult problems and have to reason about difficult 581 00:26:34.750 --> 00:26:37.410 things, the quicker you are to find that 582 00:26:37.410 --> 00:26:39.900 solution or find a solution that at least solves a 583 00:26:39.900 --> 00:26:42.900 problem. Um, I think this week we were 584 00:26:42.900 --> 00:26:45.860 talking to one of our other engineer friends, Cody, and 585 00:26:45.860 --> 00:26:48.590 he was kind of talking and brought up. This proposition of, like, 586 00:26:48.600 --> 00:26:51.540 better is better or worse, is better in the programming 587 00:26:51.540 --> 00:26:54.320 world. And, you know, we could spend a lot of time and 588 00:26:54.330 --> 00:26:57.250 architect the perfect solution and, you know, be better 589 00:26:57.250 --> 00:27:00.030 is better. But if we're not able to 590 00:27:00.040 --> 00:27:03.020 get a solution out there and and get something in front 591 00:27:03.020 --> 00:27:05.960 of a customer or in front of whoever the 592 00:27:05.960 --> 00:27:08.850 stakeholder is like, what are we doing? So kind 593 00:27:08.850 --> 00:27:11.530 of worse is sometimes better because it's there, 594 00:27:11.540 --> 00:27:14.130 it's usable. They know how to deal with it 595 00:27:14.140 --> 00:27:16.970 um and so. Like getting that practice 596 00:27:16.970 --> 00:27:19.970 with these, you know, coding challenges and things 597 00:27:20.120 --> 00:27:22.580 is gonna help you for different 598 00:27:22.590 --> 00:27:25.420 interviews as you progress in your career 599 00:27:25.430 --> 00:27:27.620 on move from place to place. 600 00:27:27.630 --> 00:27:30.630 Uh, but yeah, you know. And the funny thing 601 00:27:30.630 --> 00:27:33.070 is, like, Taylor, you and I have very different 602 00:27:33.440 --> 00:27:35.790 work experience. Mine 603 00:27:35.800 --> 00:27:38.330 is an intern turned 604 00:27:38.340 --> 00:27:40.590 engineer still working for the same place 605 00:27:40.600 --> 00:27:43.520 for, you know, almost going on five 606 00:27:43.520 --> 00:27:46.180 years now. So that's my experience. 607 00:27:46.180 --> 00:27:49.100 I have done some of these interview questions 608 00:27:49.100 --> 00:27:52.010 and stuff before, but it was right out of 609 00:27:52.010 --> 00:27:54.750 college, which for me, that was really hard to 610 00:27:54.750 --> 00:27:57.720 reason about. Like I had data structures. I had, you 611 00:27:57.720 --> 00:28:00.490 know, all these courses. But I hadn't had any 612 00:28:00.490 --> 00:28:03.460 practice. So for me, it was really difficult to like 613 00:28:03.470 --> 00:28:05.670 put those words into actions. Um, 614 00:28:06.440 --> 00:28:09.060 but luckily, you know, had 615 00:28:09.060 --> 00:28:11.840 opportunities here at ITPro and had actually a 616 00:28:11.840 --> 00:28:14.440 couple of other opportunities. And they really 617 00:28:14.440 --> 00:28:17.390 value just the ability to verbalize 618 00:28:17.400 --> 00:28:20.300 what you're trying to dio. And so I 619 00:28:20.300 --> 00:28:22.710 would maybe even suggest that you do various 620 00:28:22.710 --> 00:28:25.010 challenges, maybe verbalize and 621 00:28:25.010 --> 00:28:27.990 say I'm doing this solution because 622 00:28:28.000 --> 00:28:30.870 even if it's just you in your room, I still 623 00:28:30.870 --> 00:28:33.850 think that's valuable for you. Moving forward. Yeah, 624 00:28:33.850 --> 00:28:36.790 >> I think that's a good way to get comfortable in 625 00:28:36.790 --> 00:28:39.780 that type of scenario, because clearly an interview coding 626 00:28:39.780 --> 00:28:42.760 challenge isn't exactly the same as your day job. Normally, you're 627 00:28:42.760 --> 00:28:45.260 not in front of a white board or explaining your problem 628 00:28:45.260 --> 00:28:47.800 solution as you're working through it. But 629 00:28:47.800 --> 00:28:50.650 one interesting way to work 630 00:28:50.650 --> 00:28:53.290 on these that I think has become more realistic 631 00:28:53.290 --> 00:28:56.110 recently is to stream your solution or 632 00:28:56.120 --> 00:28:59.120 maybe not stream it, but pretend like you are where Okay, if 633 00:28:59.120 --> 00:29:02.120 I was sitting here and I had my window open and there was a camera on me and I 634 00:29:02.120 --> 00:29:04.710 was streaming on YouTube, how would I 635 00:29:04.710 --> 00:29:07.700 explain to the people watching what it is that I'm doing and why 636 00:29:07.700 --> 00:29:10.600 I'm doing it? Because as someone who has conducted a 637 00:29:10.600 --> 00:29:13.220 fair amount of technical interviews. 638 00:29:13.230 --> 00:29:15.870 That's ultimately what I'm more interested in rather 639 00:29:15.870 --> 00:29:18.730 than can they solve this problem? So if I ask 640 00:29:18.730 --> 00:29:21.710 someone, can you solve the fizz buzz problem? And they say, yes, they 641 00:29:21.710 --> 00:29:24.610 quickly write it on the on the board. That's good. But I would 642 00:29:24.610 --> 00:29:27.470 prefer to hear you know, how they're working through how they're 643 00:29:27.470 --> 00:29:29.400 thinking how they like to approach problems. 644 00:29:29.410 --> 00:29:32.320 >> Yeah, I think uh to point back to 645 00:29:32.320 --> 00:29:35.160 the article, I think he does a good job explaining of why he 646 00:29:35.160 --> 00:29:38.050 did what he did and some kind of as you read 647 00:29:38.050 --> 00:29:41.000 through the blog post, you have the ability to kind 648 00:29:41.000 --> 00:29:43.930 of see how he reasoned about the problem. Um, 649 00:29:43.940 --> 00:29:46.750 you know, and obviously you hear how how we would reason and 650 00:29:46.750 --> 00:29:49.400 verbalize it, you know, through the podcast. 651 00:29:49.410 --> 00:29:52.180 But yeah, overall, I think this is a great blog blog 652 00:29:52.180 --> 00:29:55.100 post, and I really think we had a great time today on this On 653 00:29:55.100 --> 00:29:56.800 the on the podcast. 654 00:29:56.810 --> 00:29:59.610 >> Yeah, I sure did. I hope you all had a good 655 00:29:59.610 --> 00:30:02.170 time listening uh. I think that will do it for us 656 00:30:02.170 --> 00:30:04.630 today. This has been the Haskell Weekly 657 00:30:04.630 --> 00:30:07.560 podcast. I'm your host, Taylor Fausak. And with me 658 00:30:07.560 --> 00:30:10.380 today was Cameron Gera. If you'd like to learn 659 00:30:10.380 --> 00:30:13.380 more about the podcast or our newsletter, please 660 00:30:13.380 --> 00:30:16.170 visit our website Haskell weekly dot News 661 00:30:16.440 --> 00:30:19.060 Or you can catch us on social Media. Our Twitter 662 00:30:19.060 --> 00:30:21.990 handle is Haskell Weekly. We're on Reddit as Haskell Weekly 663 00:30:21.990 --> 00:30:24.900 were on Git Hub as Haskell weekly pretty much everywhere we're 664 00:30:24.900 --> 00:30:27.800 Haskell weekly. Also, if you could take a 665 00:30:27.800 --> 00:30:30.290 minute to go rate and review us on apple 666 00:30:30.290 --> 00:30:33.020 podcasts. We currently have a five star rating 667 00:30:33.030 --> 00:30:35.960 with 16 ratings. So that's 80 stars that people have given us. 668 00:30:35.970 --> 00:30:38.910 And if you want to give us some more, that's great. If you think we suck, let 669 00:30:38.910 --> 00:30:40.640 us know and we'll try to get better. You 670 00:30:40.640 --> 00:30:43.010 >> know, Haskell Weekly podcast is brought to you by 671 00:30:43.010 --> 00:30:45.490 ITProTV, an e-learning 672 00:30:45.490 --> 00:30:48.440 platform for IT professionals and also our 673 00:30:48.450 --> 00:30:51.330 employer. But, you know, we would love 674 00:30:51.330 --> 00:30:54.280 toe extend an offer if you're interested in an IT 675 00:30:54.280 --> 00:30:56.980 content, um, to you with a 676 00:30:56.990 --> 00:30:59.520 promo code of Haskell weekly 677 00:30:59.530 --> 00:31:02.080 30. That is Haskell 678 00:31:02.090 --> 00:31:04.640 weekly 30 All one word. 679 00:31:04.650 --> 00:31:07.330 Um and if you want to check it 680 00:31:07.330 --> 00:31:09.550 out. You know? Obviously we have a free membership as well, 681 00:31:09.550 --> 00:31:12.480 so come over. ITProTV. You 682 00:31:12.480 --> 00:31:15.440 know, it's I t pro dot tv. Easy to find. 683 00:31:15.450 --> 00:31:18.240 Easy to see. Um, come check out our great content 684 00:31:18.250 --> 00:31:21.170 and keep hanging out. We really love doing this. And 685 00:31:21.170 --> 00:31:23.720 we really are thankful that ITPro lets us do this. 686 00:31:23.720 --> 00:31:26.040 So it's been a good day, man. 687 00:31:26.050 --> 00:31:28.550 >> Sure has. I'll see you all next week 688 00:31:28.780 --> 00:31:29.870 Peace Bye.