Another in this genre: https://aphyr.com/posts/342-typing-the-technical-interview
This (along with several others) is linked at the top of the article.
Subverting the software interview (2021)
11–20 of 80 posts
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#12Probably didn't pass the interview. The implementation was rather simplistic and low quality. Here's a better enterprise version: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Though the fact that it was written some years ago might be a weakness. Some interviewers might prefere a more modern, distributed solution.
A multi core one, with lockless data structures.
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#13Gorgeous. I'm not versed well enough in the theory to validate his code, but I know enough to see where he's going with this.
As an aside, there's a lot of rightful complaining about the interview process. I've been on both sides and it sucks either way.
As a hiring manager for a small company, we never had the 'process' that bigger companies have, so it was always a seat of the pants decision. Not my favourite thing to do.
As an interviewee, I've struggled with people's favourite questions, you know the ones that you ask so much that it starts sounding like an easy question in your head?... I'm productive, I ship software but interviewing is so incredibly stressful and always makes me feel like I don't know much.
Anyhow, if I was interviewing the OP for a typical web app CRUD position or monolith to micro services refactor or some other common role, I'd think twice. Clearly he's very smart. Is he able to "deliver value" vs optimizing code? I know the post was tongue in cheek, but in the real interview setting you gotta demonstrate how you're a smart team player and allude to your capabilities. It's kinda like dating I guess. You can't show how much of a real person you're on the first date.
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#14Everything makes sense to me until the Dual definitions: newtype Dual a = Dual {getDual :: a} instance Semigroup s => Dual s where (Dual a Dual b) = Dual (b a) instance Monoid m => Dual m where mempty = Dual (mempty) These are declaring instances of Dual, but they are providing method definitions for Semigroup and Monoid as if they were declaring instances for those types. I plugged this into ghc and I couldn't get t…
Likely meant to be lifting instances of Semigroup and Monoid through Dual:
newtype Dual a = Dual {getDual :: a}
instance Semigroup s => Semigroup (Dual s) where
(Dual a) (Dual b) = Dual (b a)
instance Monoid m => Monoid (Dual m) where
mempty = Dual (mempty)Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#15Great writing, hilarious. I feel like we all could know someone who fits these characteristics.
I worked with a guy who implemented map and reduce in C++ as a subtask of some other task. It was, of course, a header-only templated monstrosity. He called it "fun.hpp". "Fun" times, indeed, working with him.
OMG.
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#16I'm crying from laughter - this is simply fantastic! Mucho thanks to author and OP for making my morning!!!
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#17Probably didn't pass the interview. The implementation was rather simplistic and low quality. Here's a better enterprise version: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris... Though the fact that it was written some years ago might be a weakness. Some interviewers might prefere a more modern, distributed solution.
This is brilliant and spot on.
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#18Gorgeous. I'm not versed well enough in the theory to validate his code, but I know enough to see where he's going with this. As an aside, there's a lot of rightful complaining about the interview process. I've been on both sides and it sucks either way. As a hiring manager for a small company, we never had the 'process' that bigger companies have, so it was always a seat of the pants decision. Not my favourite thing…
> validate his code
> by Naomi Liu
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#19Gorgeous. I'm not versed well enough in the theory to validate his code, but I know enough to see where he's going with this. As an aside, there's a lot of rightful complaining about the interview process. I've been on both sides and it sucks either way. As a hiring manager for a small company, we never had the 'process' that bigger companies have, so it was always a seat of the pants decision. Not my favourite thing…
You could have at least clicked on the LinkedIn link before assuming the author was a guy... https://www.linkedin.com/in/naomi-w-liu/
Re: Subverting the software interview (2021)
#20Gorgeous. I'm not versed well enough in the theory to validate his code, but I know enough to see where he's going with this. As an aside, there's a lot of rightful complaining about the interview process. I've been on both sides and it sucks either way. As a hiring manager for a small company, we never had the 'process' that bigger companies have, so it was always a seat of the pants decision. Not my favourite thing…
> validate his code > by Naomi Liu
A name does not imply sex. Even if it did, the parent wrote multiple paragraphs and you get hung up on something as inconsequential as this.
Take a day off.