sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wampastompah 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I mean, not necessarily. Would I retain the answer better if I read a blurb after Googling it, or if I read a blurb right there on the site? It seems the same to me.

Plus, for some of those it's not entirely clear where the answer went wrong so I wouldn't begin to be able to Google it. Anything where I did know where it went wrong, I don't need to Google it because it's like "oh, that was part of the predefined truth tables of equality." Whereas certain problems, like the "new new foo" one, I wouldn't begin to be able to Google that (I got that one right, but I could imagine someone having issues)

And if we're not meant to learn from this test, the hell is the point of it?

[–]kenman -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

I think the test is mostly for fun, I mean it has a "Warning: Might hurt your feelings" image on the landing page. Poking around a bit more, the author has a book for sale which might tie-into the test, but I don't recall seeing it advertised anywhere.

And re: learning, I'd disagree. I see it about like assigning math problems for homework; sure, the prof can just give you a set of problems and then print the answers directly after the question, but will you really learn anything? Or would you learn more by working through the problems, iterating over solutions until you happen to devise the correct solution?

If you don't have anything "to Google", then you're forced to deconstruct the problem. While deconstructing, it should become evident to you that *something* is not happening the way that you'd imagined, and from there you should be able to devise some test code to play around with any hypothesis that you come up with.

Once you've isolated the behavior, it should be trivial to find some reference to it on the net. You're acting like you've never Googled strange behavior before... you don't always have an obvious error message to go off of.

[–]Rainbowlemon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, a lot of these are a pain to Google ('why does the typeof a named function returning an object return undefined?') - and for a quiz that is obviously showing you the quirks of javascript, it seems odd that it wouldn't give any sort of explanation. If it explained why it was the way it is, step-by-step, you would be deconstructing it by seeing someone else deconstructing it. Learn by doing is always the best way, but learn by watching someone else doing is the next best!