> Does your process involve invention? If so, please describe the three most recent things you have invented and why it was necessary to invent something new. If you're asked this in an interview, you can't respond "no". If I were being interviewed, I'd hear it as somewhat like "Do you like unicorns, which are awesome? If so, describe your three favorite awesome activities with unicorns." Which is fine, if you're on…
The Mother of All Interview Questions
11–20 of 136 posts
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#12Also, a punny title which is actually a pun on the subject of the article? I think I might be in love.
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#13> Does your process involve invention? If so, please describe the three most recent things you have invented and why it was necessary to invent something new. If you're asked this in an interview, you can't respond "no". If I were being interviewed, I'd hear it as somewhat like "Do you like unicorns, which are awesome? If so, describe your three favorite awesome activities with unicorns." Which is fine, if you're on…
All programming is inventing.
But not all good programmers see programming as inventing. I'm not sure you wind-up better by weeding out those who don't programming as inventing.
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#14The chapter of Programming Perl regarding software libraries starts out with a discussion of Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris ), but more importantly, it also explicitly mentions the ideas of False Laziness, False Impatience, and False Hubris, which each in turn lead software developers from making poor choices as to whether they should build a new software library, reuse an existing library, or just get on with their damn job, and write something easy.
But this essay gets right to the same core here. How is it that we do our jobs as software developers? What is the right way to approach a particular problem? These are hard questions to answer in abstract, but thinking about the nature of invention is a pretty good proxy.
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#15I like Larry Wall's conceptual framework for this. The chapter of Programming Perl regarding software libraries starts out with a discussion of Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris ( http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris ), but more importantly, it also explicitly mentions the ideas of False Laziness, False Impatience, and False Hubris, which each in turn lead software developers from making poor choices as to…
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#16I like Larry Wall's conceptual framework for this. The chapter of Programming Perl regarding software libraries starts out with a discussion of Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris ( http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LazinessImpatienceHubris ), but more importantly, it also explicitly mentions the ideas of False Laziness, False Impatience, and False Hubris, which each in turn lead software developers from making poor choices as to…
Thank you, may I quote this?
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#17I think it's most useful when you can: a)present both options in a positive light ("I am a github/mashable-whisperer and can string libraries and API's together at ridiculous speed!" for instance) and b) it's clear that there is no wrong answer.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be a wrong answer for your organization, but I am saying that the question will become less useful if there is, because your candidate will be tempted to fudge.
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#18Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#19That blog post is less about interviewing than the title suggests. It's an interesting dichotomy.
Re: The Mother of All Interview Questions
#20> Does your process involve invention? If so, please describe the three most recent things you have invented and why it was necessary to invent something new. If you're asked this in an interview, you can't respond "no". If I were being interviewed, I'd hear it as somewhat like "Do you like unicorns, which are awesome? If so, describe your three favorite awesome activities with unicorns." Which is fine, if you're on…
The question of bias is an excellent one to ponder. I agree that my phrasing is biased, but so is: The last three times you faced a "build or buy (/use open source)” situation, which did you choose, and why? ...in a way, as it only covers places where there is a perception that there was a straight-up choice. One of the things I am interested in is places where the invetion-oriented folks didn’t perceive there was a…
True story: I went to a talk given by one of the 'engineering elders' (these were low Emp# engineers who were considered quite successful and were to be emulated by the workers :-) This person stated when they came to work at Google they were given the XYZ system to work on (sadly I'm prevented from disclosing the actual system). They remarked how they spent a couple of days looking over the system which was complicated and creaky, they couldn't figure it out so they wrote a new system. Yup, and they committed that. This person is a coding God are they not? (sarcasm) I asked what happened to the old system (I knew but was interested on their perspective) and they said it was still around because a few things still used it, but (quite proudly) nearly everything else had moved to their new system.
So if you were reading carefully, this person created a new system to 'replace' an existing system which they didn't understand and got nearly everyone to move to the new system. That made them uber because they got something big to put on their internal resume, and a whole crapload of folks had to write new code to adapt from the old system to this new system, which imperfectly recreated the old system (remember they didn't understand the original), such that those parts of the system that relied on the more obscure bits had yet to be converted (because nobody undersood either the dependent code or the old system apparently).
Was this person smart? Blindingly brilliant according to some of their peers. Did they get things done? Hell yes, they wrote the replacement for the XYZ system from scratch! One person? Can you imagine? Would I hire them? Not unless they were the last qualified person in my pool and I was out of time.
That anecdote encapsulates the dangerous side of smart people who get things done. Sometimes they are too smart and do too much. So when the question of 'invention' comes up I like to wrap it around discovery. Sort of 'Tell me about a time where you built something that you had no idea how to build it when you started.' Things I look for are how did you go about discovering the path? What resources did you engage? What options did you consider? When did you 'call the vote'[1] ? My experience has been that things built by two or three people, working as peers, are often much 'better' (meet the needs better, cover more cases, have a more consistent model) than things built by one person.
[1] 'call the vote' - in parlimentary terms when continuing debate will not help you make a better decision, it is time to stop debate and to vote on the decsion. Good leaders look for this point, and move forward once all the voices have been heard.