521–530 of 675 posts
I once failed a leet code graph problem because I solved it with a genetic algorithm. The problem wasn’t that I was incapable of solving the problem, it was the narrow view of possible solutions. The interviewer was looking for the CS101 solution. My biggest gripe with leetcode is they tend to filter diversity of thought.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a fascinating idea. Get companies to accept some form of standardized testing and have it be transferable. That would greatly increase the motivation behind its studies I would presume.
I, for one, will probably never subject myself to a FAANG-type interview, but absolutely would study for and take a similar standardized test if it unlocked the same kind of opportunities, and I didn't have to re-take it with every interview.
In fact I believe software should have some qualification tests, e.g. general coding, database, cloud computing, etc. Like CPA for accountants. Each test should be valid for a few years in each category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> leetcode is the SAT for coding, not perfect, but at least it's close to fair play. It would be amazing if leetcode were like the SAT, and you could just get one good score and then never think about it again. Anything like that would make it much lower-friction to switch between FAANGs (and friends), though, which I suspect is a big part of why they've settled on doing things this way.
That’s a fascinating idea. Get companies to accept some form of standardized testing and have it be transferable. That would greatly increase the motivation behind its studies I would presume.
I just tell recruiters I simply won't. Turned down continuing with an interview process with a company just last week for this reason. I'll do take-home programming, I'll do collaborative debugging and coding in a shared IDE with something that looks like a real project, I'll do system design etc. interviews, talk to you about programming, etc. and I'll show you my GitHub etc. projects and you can judge from that, an…
I highly doubt it, but I do the same. So that's at least 3 of us.
All of these supposed "flaws" of leetcode are by design. Big companies want people who are smart enough to do the work, but obedient enough to put up with all the bullshit that comes with working at a big company. What person better matches that than someone who's able and willing to study for and pass a tech version of the SAT? Every anti-leetcode article I read is some version of "leetcode is bad because it measure…
This is ridiculous. You yourself admitted that conspiracy theory doesn't explain startups. The answer is simple: leetcode interviews are stupid easy to give. There is no "nefarious conspiracy to keep workers obedient." It is simply the path of least effort.
I've noticed that Apple only uses simple leetcode-y style questions for its phone screens, but for their on-sites they ask very domain specific questions. It is interesting because if you're actually good at the domain you're interviewing for, they are very easy. If you're not they can be intractable. Its clear that each team puts a lot of thought into the interview process and I imagine Apple teams get a very high SNR, at least compared to Google / FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a fascinating idea. Get companies to accept some form of standardized testing and have it be transferable. That would greatly increase the motivation behind its studies I would presume.
you could even call it certification!
I just tell recruiters I simply won't. Turned down continuing with an interview process with a company just last week for this reason. I'll do take-home programming, I'll do collaborative debugging and coding in a shared IDE with something that looks like a real project, I'll do system design etc. interviews, talk to you about programming, etc. and I'll show you my GitHub etc. projects and you can judge from that, an…
If you’d like to try an interview process I don’t think sucks: https://mckesson.wd3.myworkdayjobs.com/CoverMyMeds_External_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leetcode doesn't measure "smart and determined to succeed". It measures "has enough extra time and energy to devote to practicing pointless brainteasers for weeks." In other words, whatever it's intended to do, one of its primary functions in practice is to screen out people who are bright, driven...and poor, working long hours and trying to keep themselves and/or their families going.
Being able to quickly come up with an efficient algorithm to a complex problem is not a "pointless brainteaser".
Being able to quickly invert a binary tree and that kind of nonsense belongs in library code (at best). It's not something that the average developer should ever need to worry about the actual implementation of, let alone have to implement from scratch in under 30 minutes.