Ruby Interview Questions

She could write unit tests or specs to ensure her application behaves as intended. She could also profile her application with tools like the unix time command, the ruby Benchmark class, and the ruby library called ruby-prof.
A cunning programmer would also argue that these two techniques ought to be used for both static and dynamic languages when developing complex systems.
Wrapping things up
To finish up with, I like to lob in some easy ones again. Plus I like to scratch my own curiosity about a candidates relationship with the ruby community.

I really like gotAPI -- auto-complete searching for both ruby and rails together!

:: is used to access static methods that do not require object initialization.

Although these two statements might appear to be equivalent, they are not, due to the order of operations. Specifically, the and and or operators have lower precedence than the = operator, whereas the && and || operators have higher precedence than the = operator, based on order of operations.

To help clarify this, here’s the same code, but employing parentheses to clarify the default order of operations:

  (val1 = true) and false    # results in val1 being equal to true
  val2 = (true && false)     # results in val2 being equal to false

This is, incidentally, a great example of why using parentheses to clearly specify your intent is generally a good practice, in any language. But whether or not you use parentheses, it’s important to be aware of these order of operations rules and to thereby ensure that you are properly determining when to employ and / or vs. && / ||.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

As is always true in programming, there are in fact multiple ways to accomplish this.

The most straightforward answer would be of the form:

hsh.keys.map(&:to_s).sort_by(&:length)

or:

hsh.keys.collect(&:to_s).sort_by { |key| key.length }

Alternatively, Ruby’s Enumerable mixin provides many methods to operate on collections. The key here is to turn the hash keys into a collection, convert them all to strings, then sort the array.

  def key_sort hsh
    hsh.keys.collect(&:to_s).sort { |a, b| a.length <=> b.length }
  end

An equivalent call of the collect method is done with the usual block syntax of:

collect { |x| x.to_s }

The first three lines of code will all print out 10, as expected.

The next two lines of code will both print out 3, as expected.

However, the last line of code (i.e., sum (1,2)) will result in the following:

syntax error, unexpected ',', expecting ')'
  sum (1, 2)
  ^

The problem is the space between the method name and the open parenthesis. Because of the space, the Ruby parser thinks that (1, 2) is an expression that represents a single argument, but (1, 2) is not a valid Ruby expression, hence the error.

Note that the problem does not occur with single argument methods (as shown with our timesTwo method above), since the single value is a valid expression (e.g., (5) is a valid expression which simply evaluates to 5).

Foo::Bar.new.value1 will be equal to 'Foo Local' and Foo::Bar.new.value2 will be equal to 'Global'.

Here’s why:

The module keyword (as well as the class and def keywords) will create a new lexical scope for all of its contents. The above module Foo therefore creates the scope Foo in which the VAL constant equal to 'Foo Local' is defined. Inside Foo, we declare class Bar, which creates another new lexical scope (named Foo::Bar) which also has access to its parent scope (i.e., Foo) and all of its constants.

However, when we then declare Foo::Bar (i.e., using ::), we are actually creating yet another lexical scope, which is also named Foo::Bar (how’s that for confusing!). However, this lexical scope has no parent (i.e., it is entirely independent of the lexcial scope Foo created earlier) and therefore does not have any access to the contents of the ‘Foo’ scope. Therefore, inside class Foo::Bar, we only have access to the VAL constant declared at the beginning of the script (i.e., outside of any module) with the value 'Global'.

Yes, it’s valid. Here’s how to understand what it does:

The -> operator creates a new Proc, which is one of Ruby’s function types. (The -> is often called the “stabby proc”. It’s also called the “stabby lambda”, as it creates a new Proc instance that is a lambda. All lambdas are Procs, but not all Procs are lambdas. There are some slight differences between the two.)

This particular Proc takes one parameter (namely, a). When the Proc is called, Ruby executes the block p a, which is the equivalent of puts(a.inspect) (a subtle, but useful, difference which is why p is sometimes better than puts for debugging). So this Proc simply prints out the string that is passed to it.

You can call a Proc by using either the call method on Proc, or by using the square bracket syntax, so this line of code also invokes the Proc and passes it the string “Hello World”.

So putting that all together, this line of code (a) creates a Proc that takes a single parameter a which it prints out and (b) invokes that Proc and passes it the string “Hello world”. So, in short, this line of code prints “Hello World”.

A call to super invokes the parent method with the same arguments that were passed to the child method. An error will therefore occur if the arguments passed to the child method don’t match what the parent is expecting.

A call to super() invokes the parent method without any arguments, as presumably expected. As always, being explicit in your code is a good thing.

(Thanks to Ruby Gotchas for this question.)