Personally, I’d love this system (I immediately thought of some code snippets I’d bring!), but I’m curious how you’d handle candidates without any open source projects or contributions who still have a substantial employment history but are unable to show any code from that because it’s all proprietary.

I’m a Vim user to my core, but I still use org-mode with this plugin (and Orgzly on Android) because of how useful it is.

My biggest (mostly) irrational internet pet peeve is the proliferation of people suggesting “:wq” when “:x” is strictly better.

This is exactly right. However, something that I’ve found frustrating is that in many projects (at least the ones that I’m interested in), it feels like there’s a secret roadmap that’s not documented anywhere outside of the maintainer’s head(s). You can scour the wiki, watch the IRC channel and mailing lists, and read through the issue discussions, and you still won’t have a good sense of what they want done next or if the change you want to make is incompatible with some big planned rewrite. I know the answer is to just ask—and I’ve done that more and more recently—but that can be a big hurdle if you’re just getting started.

I’m trying to build a community for a project right now, and this is something I’m very aware of. I’m trying to report on what I’m working on and planning in the project chat so that if someone else comes along, hopefully they’ll (a) understand the current status and (b) feel comfortable asking about the overall vision.

That is sexy. My only problem is that I tend to run my Git operations in a pretty small tmux pane on the side of my editing pane, so that layout ends up being too wide to fit well. I’ll definitely keep that alias around for when I have a full screen though!

That’s why git log --oneline exists ;)

My commits tend to be pretty verbose. Here’s an example log from one of my projects.

I follow the standard imperative style for the commit title, and then I use the body to summarize any important internal changes, reflect on the overall project status (for example, what milestones this commit crosses or what other work it might enable or require), and state what I’m going to work on next. I’m sure some people find it too wordy, but I like having the commit history show lots of details about the overall status.

Edit: I always have a descriptive summary, i.e., never one word commits or similar.

Nim is one of my favorite languages, and has been one of my primary languages in rotation for projects for the last five or so years. I’ve written servers (and web frontends, CLI tools, quick scripts, etc.) with it and am very happy with the results.

It’s hard for me to put into words why I like it so much, but I think it might actually be because it’s such a mishmash of paradigms. If I’m in a functional mood, I can use lots of ideas from functional programming. If I feel like using OOP everywhere, I can do that too. And if I want to mix both together, it’s no problem! Nim kind of feels like the Wild West, and while that’s something I’d dislike in most languages, for whatever reason it works when writing in Nim.

This is interesting—I hadn’t heard of vis or Sam. Thanks for sharing!

I will say that I like to think of myself as a reasonably advanced Vim user, and the substitution commands used for the example wouldn’t have even occurred to me for changes 1 and 2. I would have automatically done it the alternative ways listed. I’m pretty sure those would be faster to type too (they’re fewer keystrokes). Is it really true for most people that “the substitute command is used 90% of the time when using commands”?