Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Tech Dev Guide

techdevguide.withgoogle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 250 posts

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#121

Post by Bahamut »

mav3rick wrote: post #44
lwansbrough wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thought process: 1.) this is an intersection problem, 2.) what does a quick search have to say about efficiently solving an intersection problem in $language? That thought process does not require any algorithm knowledge. That knowledge is already out there in abundance, and there are enough people smarter than me focused on those problems that I am wasting everyone’s time by implementing a solution myself. (Btw t…

And what if you don't have a standard library ? You're working on a new device, on a new language ?. Frameworks breed programmers with less adaptability, foundations breed problem solvers that can adapt across problems.

I'd argue that someone with CS fundamentals doesn't necessarily tell me how adaptable someone is. Many times, the depth isn't there to strongly indicate one way or another. Adaptability is a difficult thing to try to assess.

I say this as someone working for another FAANG whose HQ is not too far away from Google's, and as someone who spent 4 years in a math PhD program.

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#122

Post by rhizome »

snaky wrote: post #40
m0zg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't. This seems like a typical Google interview question. If you didn't know how to solve it before the interview started, you aren't going to figure out anything other than a brute force solution in 45 minutes. And brute force solution will not get you a good grade in a tech interview at Google. It's idiotic: once you do get hired by Google, easily 80% of your work is copying one proto buffer into another, an…

> figuring out how things work in the absence of documentation That would be great interview test actually. Given a bunch of unknown code, add some simple functions, not breaking it apart. Keeping the style (not only syntactically) would be a bonus.

While I'm not in a position to test it, I've thought for a while that companies should save their bugs, make an app that is similar enough to the work that these saved-off bugs can be put into it, then compare the candidate solutions with what your existing people came up with.

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#123

Post by jldugger »

ascar wrote: post #89
panda88888 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorting D is a one time operation of n log n, so the overall complexity is n log n + n * m, which reduces to O(n * m) where n is number of words in D and m is length of S.

You are right, I was off. On another note: I absolutely do not understand why we substitute the international mathematical symbol for cardinality (|A|) with variables we have to explain. Computer science has a math background, so we all know set theory. At least I also learned using cardinality with Big O notation in university. But for some reason industry prefers to use variables here.

I'm not sure my math classes ever actually mentioned that particular notation. I agree it's more elegant to formalize the analysis, but it's not particularly elegant on the webpage -- the kerning feels off.

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#124

Post by oxw »

ramenmeal wrote: post #34

Did a quick once over on the lessons titles, didn't see anything mentioning SOLID or programming patterns and paradigms.

Patterns and paradigms can be taught easily on the job, and can be overly specific. The "advanced programming" course teaches genuine problem solving. Breaking down a problem into it's mathematical components to develop an optimal solution. It builds you into a good engineer, not a programmer that can spit out patterns to fit a problem.

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#126

Post by seanmcdirmid »

raverbashing wrote: post #114
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, but everyone is. Too many fakers in this industry.

And too many people that can't be bothered to think of easy ways of filtering them without something stupid like fizzbuzz Who's the faker again?

If you have a better way, propose a startup, you’ll make bank.

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#127

Post by greenleafjacob »

cromwellian wrote: post #92
lwansbrough wrote: post #2

"Given a string S and a set of words D, find the longest word in D that is a subsequence of S." Found under "Foundations of programming" -- this is exactly the type of problem I'd expect as question one under this section. When it's made by Googlers, that is. I make a lot of cool stuff day to day, and usually that requires a lot of code and knowledge about programming and topics that are rather advanced (currently I'…

(Disclaimer: I work at Google). This is going to sound like a humble-brag, but it isn't, I'm trying to give some life advice based on my experience: I have used "CS" algorithmic thinking on multiple projects, I've even used facets of abstract algebra and number theory from my Math degree to further my career and it lifted me out of poverty. Here's an example. A few years ago, I was researching ways to crunch down the…

> That design was heavily based off of number theoretical knowledge I had to dust off

The fact you had to "dust it off" implies that it was not top of mind, which is precisely the argument people have been making; that it's not top of mind, and need not be because it can be "dust[ed] off", and that investing months in prep just to pass an arbitrary hoop is a waste of time.

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#128

Post by [deleted] »

lwansbrough wrote: post #2

"Given a string S and a set of words D, find the longest word in D that is a subsequence of S." Found under "Foundations of programming" -- this is exactly the type of problem I'd expect as question one under this section. When it's made by Googlers, that is. I make a lot of cool stuff day to day, and usually that requires a lot of code and knowledge about programming and topics that are rather advanced (currently I'…

[deleted]

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#129

Post by linza »

arvinsim wrote: post #116
linza wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't work for Google and i haven't interviewed with them. In our company (low level systems engineering) we ask similar question, with the following rationale: I don't want to test if you can build systems, your resume already says so and there is but enough time to assess this properly anyway. But, can you be bothered to try to solve problems outside of your comfort zone? Will you humor me as an interviewer for o…

I find this amusing because lots of people put bullshit on their resumes that one has to filter them out. I already have my hands full trying to filter out the posers and assessing for culture fit. I don't have time to ask a candidate for some questions that aren't related to the role at hand. But hey, you do you.

Fair enough, maybe we (rather small company in central Europe, but with gift profile customers) are an outlier here but I'm my hiring experience there weren't really any imposters. Usually they come from companies we know well, it are new grads in which case the question of experience is moot anyway.

Re: Google Tech Dev Guide

#130

Post by cromwellian »

greenleafjacob wrote: post #127
cromwellian wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Disclaimer: I work at Google). This is going to sound like a humble-brag, but it isn't, I'm trying to give some life advice based on my experience: I have used "CS" algorithmic thinking on multiple projects, I've even used facets of abstract algebra and number theory from my Math degree to further my career and it lifted me out of poverty. Here's an example. A few years ago, I was researching ways to crunch down the…

> That design was heavily based off of number theoretical knowledge I had to dust off The fact you had to "dust it off" implies that it was not top of mind, which is precisely the argument people have been making; that it's not top of mind, and need not be because it can be "dust[ed] off", and that investing months in prep just to pass an arbitrary hoop is a waste of time.

I'd argue that if you don't regularly dust it off, you'll forget it. The only reason I remember most of that stuff is because from time to time, I go back and read crypto papers, and then need to refresh my memory.

Think about any foreign languages you learned in high school. If you have never used them in 10+ years, it is very unlikely you'll be able to 'dust off' your second language as languages acquired late tend to require regular use before amnesia sets in.

Post reply on HN