[Chicago-talk] Qualify Skills?

Chris McAvoy chris.mcavoy at gmail.com
Mon Oct 4 13:02:07 CDT 2004

Thanks for the replies.  I ended up replying B+, which based on some
of the responses sounds pretty reasonable.  I classify it like this:

* Can comprehend code at first glance.
* Can code in a natural way, i.e. doesn't need to consult a reference
at all times.
* Can code regex's without a reference.
* Understanding of mod_perl
* Strong understanding of OO concepts, lots of OO module usage,
moderate OO coding in Perl.

Some things that I feel like would qualify A status:
* Contributed "good" code to CPAN.
* Testing methodology
* Optimization
* Lots and lots of OO coding in Perl / mod_perl.

And here's a few hilarious jokes:
* Isn't afraid to post to Chicago.PM
* Went to a Chicago.PM meeting one time.
* Has some Perl books.
* Has a Perl t-shirt.
* Breathes excessivly through mouth.
* Snorts while laughing.


On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 12:51:41 -0500, Andy Lester <andy at petdance.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:23:45PM -0500, Jim Thomason (thomasoniii at gmail.com) wrote:
> > Andy's probably best qualified to comment on all of this, though.
> Here's my take on all this: You're giving ranges.  It's not a definite
> point in the sand.  It's just to help the headhunter get an idea of what
> you're capable of doing.  If you understand objects and mod_perl and why
> you should always localize $_ if you use it in a fuction, then you're
> closer to the A-end of things.  If you've done some CGI scripting where
> you hacked a copy of some script you got somewhere, but that's about it,
> then you're closer to a D.
> xoa
> --
> Andy Lester => andy at petdance.com => www.petdance.com => AIM:petdance
> _______________________________________________
> Chicago-talk mailing list
> Chicago-talk at mail.pm.org
> http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago-talk


More information about the Chicago-talk mailing list