The content of this article is fantastic and frightening.
However, viewing this page on mobile, you can’t help but appreciate the interactivity that feels as though it’s been designed with the mobile reader in mind. It’s marvelous.
I am sitting here on an upgraded Nexus 9 tablet with the latest Google Chrome. This thing came out less than 3 years ago and yet I literally cannot read this article. I wait ten seconds not touching the page for it to finish loading as fonts, banners, sounds all pop in and try to settle around me. Barely touching the screen to scroll it down causes a button to start sliding around the page, overlapping on top of a bunch of text telling me I can stop pushing the button any time. The roulette wheel animation in the background spins at 2fps while the motor in my fan spins at 7200rpm. Trying to touch the button causes the whole page to refresh. The page regresses to "Loading" on white while a banner ad and a pop-up self-congratulating the site for using cookies comes up. Another ten seconds to wait for my now baking sheet to cool down and I try sliding past the button while the music stutters, failing to play. The tab reloads again.
The only words I was able to read were the banner ad, the bit that tells me I can stop pushing the button, and "Loading". I think this is an apt metaphor for the modern web.
If by marvelous, you mean takes forever to load...starts rendering black text on a red background, background animations then pop in that distract me from reading the text, and oh great, what's this, inconsitent and involuntary sounds that load by default, several seconds after the page starts rendering and replay repeatedly based on where i scroll up or down in the article. I'd scroll and try to read and then "BAM" NEW-RANDOM-SOUND and animation! Shut up! I'm trying to read your god damned paragraph!
And now the animations are stuttering as I scroll...
Oh, and the horizontal-border between the text and the animation shifts up and down depending on where i am on the page (literally obscuring the text I was reading at one point).
Maybe i'm not the kind of person that poker machine sounds appeal to...
I literally can't even get it to work on my desktop setup :(
FWIW I would wager that a male would not have to inb4 pedantic arguments. Also that a male would not get so much criticism in regards to nit picky things.
But maybe it's just a common trait of detail oriented programmer types to be pedantic?
It depends. Do you prefer telecommuting or face to face interaction?
Technological globalization has created a situation where, excluding time zone differences, we could communicate in a way that is extremely similar to face to face contact.
Speaking from personal experience, a coding bootcamp might be a good opportunity for you, assuming it is cost effective. Through a coding bootcamp you will have the opportunity to network in regards to tech entrepreneurship and software in general, as well as developing a higher skill level, however you may be proficient enough already.
If I were you I would make a table of pros and cons, based on as many factors as I found to be very important, attribute weights with those factors and make a decision based on the results. Or you could flip a coin and see which side you want it to land on in mid air. That will give you a good idea of which one is more favored by your spinal cord at least.
I went to a coding boot camp in Omaha, Nebraska of all places.
Less than a month out of the school I was offered a job paying $55,000 a year salary at a large insurance company.
They primarily use Java and Groovy. The bootcamp taught Ruby on Rails. Maybe I got lucky, but I've found that the ability to code is slightly less important than one's ability to speak about programming/code in general.
If you can read and understand documentation, understand fundamental concepts like OO or functional paradigm, and understand what a stack is, a closure, recursion, the difference between an integer and a float, or a character and a string, methods/functions, etcetera, you are more or less hireable.
Basically you have to understand how a computer works, and the fundamental concepts in programming, as well as how to apply them.
However, you do need to have some sort of experience to put on a resume. For instance, if you go to a coding bootcamp you should be able to develop a simple REST API which sends a blob of json from a DB to a URL. That's a relatively complex task, but with a tool set like Ruby on Rails can be done in < week.
Essentially what I am doing at my job is more complex list processing and analysis. Just taking a bunch of data from a db, performing some operations to it, and spitting it back out. Basic stuff.
> "If you can read and understand documentation, understand fundamental concepts like OO or functional paradigm, and understand what a stack is, a closure, recursion, the difference between an integer and a float, or a character and a string, methods/functions, etcetera, you are more or less hireable."
I'm sure this is true for many positions, but I'd resist the temptation to cast this across the broader job market. All of my recent interviews went significantly deeper than what you listed (though I'm not sure "functional paradigm" is a fundamental concept), so in my experience the minimum to be hireable, at least in their opinion, was higher than what you indicated.
In the most general sense, significant algo/data structure knowledge was necessary to even make it through first round interviews.
Off the top of my head, over the course of interviews with a handful of companies, I had to do several dynamic programming questions, topological sort, a couple of backtracking questions, and a seemingly never-ending number of other tree/graph questions.
Again, I'm not saying knowing this means you _are_ hireable, but to many of these companies, not knowing them made you _not_ hireable, whether correctly or incorrectly.
However, viewing this page on mobile, you can’t help but appreciate the interactivity that feels as though it’s been designed with the mobile reader in mind. It’s marvelous.