271–280 of 565 posts
Nothing cured my imposter syndrome (self taught, no degree) like walking into a startup and seeing PhDs fail to follow just about everything I'd ever learned was best practice and was doing without thinking in my own projects.
I like this approach. Far to often I’ve interviewed at places and been grilled by the interviewer only to find out when you start the quality isn’t great, what you where grilled on you won’t be working on “as that’s to hard” or “we don’t do that” despite being grilled on it and the level of skill not to great they just want senior people. It’s the bait and switch. At least being taken through existing code you know w…
If the criteria that you use for engineering hires has nearly 0 overlap with the criteria that you use for engineering promotions, then I'd assert that your company is suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance.
This article describes a hiring process that is probably a lot more useful than what I've typically witnessed at the FAANG's, provided the results can be quantified.
I sometimes ask candidates "what kind of interview do you feel would best bring out your strengths?" and try to adapt the interview to their response if I can. It's helpful if they want to talk about side projects or war stories, but doesn't pressure them to. I still give my coding challenge after. Wonder why no one else does this.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure there are a 1% of megaprojects that require additional process, but for the rest PRs are a method to control code quality socially. They introduce delays and foster ego antagonisms, so less methodical ways to control quality are optimal if the requirements are met (buy-in + skill) and complexity isn't too great.
No, every project I have worked on has review gated commits. It is a /basic/ step in ensuring that a project maintains a high quality codebase. Review does cause delays, because reviewing takes time, but we've generally found that the speed "gained" through poor change control is more than made up for through bad code. Review also shouldn't be causing ego antagonisms. You're coworkers. You have to be able to work tog…
Yeah but the tool itself is antagonistic, because it imposes a workflow of open source, a workflow that also is antagonistic with clear and absolute power. So using that tool suddenly brings that antagonism and power into a team which is supposed to be 100% collaborative, and it also only does it periodically and with random and different people in power. It's not hard to see how that becomes somewhat complicated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of developers' best work is within employers' proprietary code bases, do you consider it a red flag when they share some of that code with you?
I've never been put in the situation where an engineer shared something alarming from a proprietary code base, but hypothetically if someone brought with them the code for how to hack superuser privs for an old company, that would be an ethics violation and I would pass.
I've interviewed maybe 500 engineers in my career. I'm an early engineer of Instacart, 3rd engineer of Eventbrite, founding engineer of Reforge. Started 3 companies myself. My interview is always the same: 1. Bring code you've written 2. Share your screen 3. Explain what it does and I will casually ask questions about it You get so much information from this: - How they think about code - If they think it could be be…
My good code are paid for and thus is owned by someone who is not me and can't be shared with a third party. The code that own is inherently bad as I want to create things as fast as possible without being bogged down by proper code writing etiquette.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Skipping pr’s is not equal to skipping code review. If you pair, there’s two sets of eyes, to commit both pairs have to sign a commit. You can also organise a demo/quick mob session before commit. Then there’s a level of trust in your teammates. PR’s are great for open source projects as act as gatekeeper so not everyone can commit freely. If you need to gate keep your team members then I’d question the strength of y…
> superficial things such as names, package structure These two are not superficial, though. Naming things is one of the Hardest Things, and that and structure tell you if you're in the right spot trying to track down a bug or add a feature. Every debugging session should not be an adventure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never been put in the situation where an engineer shared something alarming from a proprietary code base, but hypothetically if someone brought with them the code for how to hack superuser privs for an old company, that would be an ethics violation and I would pass.
How are they sharing their code? At my company things are locked down so tightly that I can’t move code off of company computers. I would have to look at the code on one computer and type it into a computer of my own. Unless people are doing interviews on their company computer or the company is careless with their code, I’m not sure how someone would even share their work code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sorry you had such bad experience but you were working with the wrong people (feels like toxic even). PR reviews work best in environment where trust is key, and deciding together (emphasis on together) best approach to reach a goal is the main drive. In the end PRs should make you and the team stronger, as the knowledge is shared collectively. IMO every developer should be an admin of the repo, but more importan…
> I’m sorry you had such bad experience but you were working with the wrong people (feels like toxic even). It's the tool itself and it's imposed workflow of blocking work and gaining absolute power in demanding changes, that causes the working environment to become toxic. Nobody would ever do that in a meeting "I'm blocking this work now until my demands have been met". That would be incredibly hostile, but with thi…
PRs are a great way for the whole team to learn about how the organisation cuts code, and can reduce the number of errors, but of course with poor leadership they can be used for evil.