221–230 of 675 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't get the job not because you "didn't worry about the algorithm" but because you didn't ask any questions about the problem; just went straightforward to the implementation. In FAANG interviews that would be a red flag.
So even if you deliver exactly what they were expecting they are upset that you didn't need to ask any questions to get there?
> you can pick a ticket and pair program. Have them review an actual PR. Etc. This seems so obvious. If you pick a leetcode question, there’s always the risk that your candidate has memorized the answer to that particular question. But if you pick an actual bug/PR from your codebase, that problem disappears completely, and you get to see how they would perform on the actual job you’re hiring for. Can anybody think of…
Give the project a cost and time budget (e.g., "You've got six hours to try to resolve this issue that our [already trained and familiar with the codebase] engineers think will take ~2 hours to resolve, and we'll pay $100 an hour for the effort whether or not you succeed")
To be honest if I was an employer I probably would do leet code or similar. The logic would be that yes, many engineers are shy or nervous around people. But losing those is worth it since hiring someone bad that you have to fire (that wastes some months of productive time at the company) and then re-hire someone else is definitely worth that risk. Having made something impressive on github is somewhat fakeable since…
> get a lot of help from the internet But this exactly what they’ll do on the job. Actually, searching for help and distilling what you’ve found into a clean solution is a skill in itself.
The point is that code challenges are a pretty hard to fake test and the loss of some types of people is worth it for the employer (like me, who sucks at them).
In my team we do technical interviews in three steps: - an algorithmic challenge. It's related to what we do day to day. I work in domain names so we ask to parse a domain name. There are oddities with domain names so we check multiple things: does the candidate know what basic string manipulation functions exist? do they ask questions to get more info? how do they react when we give additional info that break the co…
We didn’t reject people if they weren’t able to complete the algorithm, because it’s a lot of unrealistic pressure. For both questions, we mostly just want to see how they think things through, how they identify pain points, how open they are to feedback, and discuss their approach.
Even though we would tell people this, I think they still put a lot of pressure on themselves because of the status quo of leetcode interviews.
As an interviewer I can tell you are absolutely missing the point. Why would I ever want to hire a developer without seeing them perform? And since being able to program a small piece of code to specification is such a basic, important part of development, why would it be bad for me to verify if you can do it? If your friends are so good developers, why would they have a problem reasoning around a relatively simple,…
This is a great example of what the top comment in this thread describes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> replaced them with real engineers nice gatekeeping. Shame on them for working to get a job they want.
After seeing all the unreliable and buggy software, i think more gatekeeping in IT would probably be beneficial. You wouldn't let someone do surgery on you that hasn't been to medical school.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> replaced them with real engineers nice gatekeeping. Shame on them for working to get a job they want.
I want the airplane I am about to board to be flown by a real pilot.
> you can pick a ticket and pair program. Have them review an actual PR. Etc. This seems so obvious. If you pick a leetcode question, there’s always the risk that your candidate has memorized the answer to that particular question. But if you pick an actual bug/PR from your codebase, that problem disappears completely, and you get to see how they would perform on the actual job you’re hiring for. Can anybody think of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminds me of the interview process at Thinking Machines, where the interview was working onsite for a week and then getting voted on. Or Pixar which required you to excel in atleast one thing in your life
i excel at training dogs, would Pixar like to hire me?