Given a problem and access to a search engine, see if he/she can break the problem down and find the most accurate solution and tailor it to the problem.
This should be a reasonable measure of a programmers aptitude.
Why the new guy can't code
11–20 of 49 posts
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#12I had to write a binary search a few weeks ago in the course of Real Work.
I agree technical interviews aren't the only way of assessing a candidate's qualifications. Their open source projects, their writing on technical topics, and just having a geeky conversation with them are all good indicators of cluefulness.
Jon Evans is clueless. No hire.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#13I have a completely different approach. I hire people who have worked with a particular technology or ecosystem for a while, because I think that builds the relevant experience and habits. If they are good at things similar to what we are doing, they should be able to pick it up and integrate quickly, and learn more stuff. And don't underestimate the value of good documentation. But of course, one prerequisite is abs…
But of course, one prerequisite is absolutely necessary: the ability to approach problems logically. That is what one should look for on top of the domain knowledge.
This is something that many people in the enterprise and in mainstream programming are incredibly in denial about. I would guess that fully half of enterprise software decisions are made on an irrational basis, or at best on stuff that amounts to no more than hearsay.
http://www.globalnerdy.com/2008/01/28/zed-shaws-writeup-of-c...
Actually, most people are partially in denial, in that they are unconsciously trained to operate on groupthink. Most companies are not startups, so they have some proven formula for making money. The best strategy in this case is to let that work and to not rock the boat. In this case, being an obedient corporate drone is desirable. In the startup case, one is actively in search of a new formula, so it is most certainly not!
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#14"degrees are not accomplishments" Is this really true? Will I be wasting at least five years of my life by taking various CS degrees? I have some professional experience (web dev for a startup) but that's really everything beside school I have time for, and I'm not the only one in this situation. Some parts of the article were spot-on, but certain assertions seem rather drastic and biased.
No you won't. Academia thought me how to be a better programmer, about compiler construction, functional programming the theory behind OO programming, prolog, how databases actually work (IE not just some random subset of the sql language) how 3D graphics work (including how to compute light and how you go from a mesh of triangles to an image on a screen), Haskell, SVN and how to work on large projects with others (including many of the issues that are not just technical, etc). While there were a few classes that was a waste of time (how to design enterprise systems and usability comes to mind, since the first is just a matter of ticking of enough boxes and the second is do what the user expect) most of them wasn't.
There is a real bias against CS degrees in certain circles, which I suspect is fueled in part by a couple of bad experiences with no-good hires (which exist in all professions) and in part by a feeling of inadequacy some who never got a degree might feel.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#15I have a completely different approach. I hire people who have worked with a particular technology or ecosystem for a while, because I think that builds the relevant experience and habits. If they are good at things similar to what we are doing, they should be able to pick it up and integrate quickly, and learn more stuff. And don't underestimate the value of good documentation. But of course, one prerequisite is abs…
>Besides interview questions, give an interview ASSIGNMENT. Meaning, before you are hired, you have to complete some task. This shows a) commitment to wanting to work here, and b) shows that you can sole the kinds of problems we had to face before.
Are you hirering for Facebook? Because if not you will miss the developers who aren't desperate to work for anyone.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#16"degrees are not accomplishments" Is this really true? Will I be wasting at least five years of my life by taking various CS degrees? I have some professional experience (web dev for a startup) but that's really everything beside school I have time for, and I'm not the only one in this situation. Some parts of the article were spot-on, but certain assertions seem rather drastic and biased.
You're not wasting the time if you're learning something, but don't expect the degree itself to be generally considered a notable accomplishment.
Additionally, whether or not 5 years and $X dollars is worth the reward depends heavily on you, and where you go to school. Some people might find more value in spending that time and money elsewhere.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#17> Smart and Gets Things Done. (Academia is teeming with > people who are the former but not the latter. Tired stereotype. Academics at the top of their game know how to get shit done, very much so even. But it's different shit.
Tired stereotype.
And furthermore, an instance of the more general case of 'unverifiable claim.' The list doesn't stop there, either.
The first paragraph is a misleading hypothetical. You're left to infer the statistic from the author's anecdote. The new guy can't code? Is that every new guy? One in a hundred? How would you know that his first paragraph says anything at all? In the absence of making a factual claim, the author is trying to inflame passions.
"It's a big problem...[because] there's a boom on." Really? A boom? And then the "50 times more productive" trope? Then "negative productivity?" Ah. This time, the payoff is actually stated: "terrible mistake," "catastrophic company-killer" that "happen[s] so often." LOOK! THE BOOGEYMAN IS RIGHT HERE!
And then, Microsoft's fault. Of course. What isn't? It's here that we find that 'unverifiable claim' is just one of many classes of things that the author is using as a means to pander. Certainly, MS's interview tactics might have worked when initially introduced. Certainly they may have become a fad, and ineffective through overuse and the mere passage of time. But "fault" is a complex thing, and ultimately of little use, here. What if this was a deliberate plan by MS to wreck interviewing forever? So what? It gets you nowhere, except indignant, which is what the author seems to be counting on.
The article just goes on (and on) in this fashion. I won't bore you, but, now that you've got an idea of what the author is doing, go back to the article and find every spurious or unverifiable claim and ask yourself, "What could the author be trying to accomplish since he's clearly not trying to relate factual knowledge?" (Remember that the author included 9 links in as many paragraphs.)
The article is flippant, and is written in a breezy we-all-know-it's-true voice. It's apparently a moot point how tripe like this front-pages, but, with a little work, you can learn to quickly sift through crap like this and move on to meatier fare.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#18"degrees are not accomplishments" Is this really true? Will I be wasting at least five years of my life by taking various CS degrees? I have some professional experience (web dev for a startup) but that's really everything beside school I have time for, and I'm not the only one in this situation. Some parts of the article were spot-on, but certain assertions seem rather drastic and biased.
No you won't. Academia thought me how to be a better programmer, about compiler construction, functional programming the theory behind OO programming, prolog, how databases actually work (IE not just some random subset of the sql language) how 3D graphics work (including how to compute light and how you go from a mesh of triangles to an image on a screen), Haskell, SVN and how to work on large projects with others (i…
As a hiring manager, my 'bias' against CS degrees, such as it exists, is that they don't actually tell me much of anything.
Individuals have the capability to learn "compiler construction, functional programming the theory behind OO programming, prolog, how databases actually work", et al, independently of a degree, and yet, having that degree doesn't seem to actually guarantee that a potential hire understands any of the above.
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#19This post is obviously overly-biased against technical interviews. Steve Yegge said it best: "It's a bit easier to tell if someone's in great shape physically than if they're in great shape mentally. You can't just stare at their brain and hope to find a six-pack in all those folds." - http://sites.google.com/site/steveyegge2/practicing-programm...
Reading this did remind me an old thread on StackOverflow though about some CS grad who still didn't feel like she knew how to code: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/43528/im-grad...
Re: Why the new guy can't code
#20"degrees are not accomplishments" Is this really true? Will I be wasting at least five years of my life by taking various CS degrees? I have some professional experience (web dev for a startup) but that's really everything beside school I have time for, and I'm not the only one in this situation. Some parts of the article were spot-on, but certain assertions seem rather drastic and biased.
It's hyperbole to make a rhetorical point, don't read any more into it than that.
Whether or not a degree is a worthwhile activity is an interesting discussion, but it is not one that begins with 'degrees are not accomplishments'.