> I'm earnestly trying to avoid downplaying his work, but it's only a package manager.I'm earnestly trying to avoid downplaying your comment, but you sound like you have no clue how much engineering effort and talent is actually required to build and maintain a reliable, functional, production-grade package manager that a huge number of people use.
Being able to completely implement and support a sophisticated software product end-to-end is a FAR better indicator of engineering talent than isolated algorithm puzzles on a whiteboard. Whiteboard problems are used in interviews simply because individually executed complete projects are so rare (at all, let alone publicly visible).
In fact, whiteboard interviews have all but been proven to be among the least useful at distinguishing good vs bad candidates. The only reason it works is because everyone knows it's a game, studies the game, and gets tested at the same game. It's essentially a disguised IQ test that you have to study for.
The problem is, if you don't study for it specifically, you're at a huge disadvantage. This leads to famous engineers (clearly talented) getting rejected because they don't practice jumping through the particular hoops the company makes everyone jump through.
It seems there are more than several cases where Google needs a high profile engineer more than that engineer needs Google, and as a result the engineer doesn't study the hoop-jumping Google wants. Google rejects them out of bureaucratic process, and loses out on a good hire.
On the opposite side: I'm not a famous engineer, so I suck it up and practice whiteboard algorithm problems like most everyone else -- and as a result, I've never had a problem passing coding interviews. But just because most everyone jumps through hoops to play the game, doesn't mean everyone should have to.