Live data from Hacker News

The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

kranga.notion.site

341–350 of 460 posts

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think it's literally unbelievable. It reads like fiction.

> I was never asked to write a fizzbuzz until last week. > A month has passed and I got no response, no feedback, nothing… It reads like fiction because it is.

A more generous interpretation is that they started writing this a week after the event, while it was still fresh, but didn't finish it until a month had passed. Or perhaps it was a week ago when they realized they had been ghosted. Timelines needn't be linear.

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well okay, let's walk the goalposts back. Suppose there was some radical UBI scheme in place and now you get paid the same amount for working as you would for not working. There is no financial incentive to do any piece of work, but also no financial punishment for not working. Do you think most people would still go to their jobs? I think no. Most people are only motivated to work by the financial reward they get fr…

You haven't moved the goalposts back. You just used more words to suggest that people won't be willing to do work for free. That doesn't speak to whether they want to do the work or not. People can want to have a job but also want to reap some external reward from that job. But I know, you've reduced it to such a degree that you can't think clearly about it any other way. So, to humor you: I know a woman who won the…

> I know a woman who won the lottery at a young age, but kept her job as a waitress for decades because she wanted to be a waitress

This is a lovely anecdote, but practically speaking most people do not have such enjoyable jobs. The world needs septic tank specialists and web developers and telephone sanitisers and accountants. Most of the things that need doing aren't all that desirable to do on their own. This is not to say that you can't take joy in doing them anyway, after all one must imagine Sisyphus happy, but merely that given ultimate choice, most people would not choose their current working arrangement. For instance within the field of programming, most people probably have something else they'd rather work on than what they do for living. Your millionaire waitress probably wouldn't want to work behind the fryer at MacDonalds.

> We definitely do not have the same definition of 'work ethic' if this is what you took from my words.

Clearly. In my view, work ethic is unrelated to enjoyment of your job. Someone with a good work ethic would be willing to do jobs that they don't enjoy, and would complete them at a similar standard to the work they do enjoy. It's easy to have a good work ethic when doing something you want to do; the real test of it is the things you don't want to do.

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I argue the contrary case - the interview style is pretty reasonable, but the interviewers screwed up the process (and ultimately, the grading). "Adding additional requirements which test a candidate's ability to refactor code" is a pretty good exercise. And it's ok to force candidates people down a specific development path. The problem is that the interviewers didn't do this. They let the candidate pick a strategy…

Been interviewing for over a decade. Tests like this do not really tell you whether someone is a good programmer, they tell you whether a person has spent a lot of time practicing problems like this. The only way to tell if someone is good at the job is to have a conversation with them and pay attention to how they answer your questions. Ask your candidate their opinions on API interface design or whether they favor…

to correctly judge some fizzbuzz solutions (or approaches to refactoring) you would also have to be knowledgeable. Guess what I think the problem is.

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#344
post #149

I wish I could have seen the code at each step instead of just, "That was easy." Because he seems to have focused on the functionality of the code, not on the clear message that their goal is to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can make your code. I don't think this interview was actually about the code, it was about long-term maintenance and risk avoidance. So while I am not saying I love this interview me…

> their goal is to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can make your code The rules presented show that the goal is definitely not that.

The way I see it, the rules are simply constraints and obstacles put in place to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can write your code under those conditions.

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#345
post #15

I've created a joke Python library, hoping that I would get asked to code it in an interview. No luck so far https://github.com/leoffx/fizz

Reminds me of this purposely over-engineered Java version: https://github.com/EnterpriseQualityCoding/FizzBuzzEnterpris...

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#346
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the interviewers were looking for the key insight that a number is divisible by 3 iff the sum of the individual digits is divisible by 3. That is easy to verify, even constrained to using single digit data types. To be clear, I am not saying this was a great interview question and I agree the solution OP came up with is impressive.

I would have failed this question badly. I'm curious, how would you check that without access to any number or math operations? I think I would try something similar to what he did with his sum_table, but that too was disallowed. They're constraints I've never had to deal with, nor seen before.

Math operators like division aren’t native to your (traditional) cpu, they are implemented in code, for example using similar algorithms as the ones taught to us in grade school to multiply big numbers one digit at a time on paper and “long division”.

All math operations can be implemented with bitwise operators, too, i am pretty sure

Likely the interviewer specifically needed the candidate to do that, implement the math, and tried to steer them that way numerous times (no sum table, dont use the type system, no math operators). Thats likely also why they suggest allowing limited use of Google, because they realize many people will need a refresher on bitwise operations. But they don’t want to outright tell you what to search for, they needed to see some resourcefulness. When they suggested OP was cheating they likely didn’t mean it personally and actually wanted to help steer OP towards an acceptable solution. Rather than saying it’s cheating they could have said it avoids the main thing we need to see, or outright say “please implement the low level math from first principles”

In my opinion the candidate showed resourcefulness in their own way indeed, but sometimes its not even up to the person administering an interview for example if they have been given a rubric.

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#347
If what's written on the blog is true, the interviewee knows their stuff technically and the interviewers were just bad: they wanted to check some boxes, feel good about themselves and be done. Nonetheless, by self admission the interviewee also didn't speak English very well ("This was my first interview for a foreign company and the first time in life I spoke english") and that could also be part of the problem or something we didn't know is how the overall communication went, this might have played a part in the rejection. A candidate, but also an employee, might be very strong technically, but they should be able to clearly communicate their solutions and play well within a team, having a genius Anarchist might not always be the best. Anyway, from the post, I'd have moved forward with the candidate and if they were rejected they probably dodged a bullet. Best of luck with the next interviews!

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#348
post #274
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also one of those things that can be quite tricky to modify down the line when you need to add a new feature or whatnot. This problem is of course very artificial and it doesn't sound like the interview was particularly well done, but I can kind of see what they were trying to do with "keep code maintainable as it evolves". And even if you are a TS-wizard with a Ph.D. in typing: is it really worth all the cog…

Honestly? It REALLY is. This kind of typing in TS is used mostly for getting dynamically typed Javascript codebases under control. I did this once for a state management library that was considered "impossible to add types to" by the authors themselves, and thanks to this I found several bugs in the library itself, and in our own codebase, due to subtle incorrect usage. Just the fact that we got autocompletion across…

[deleted]

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I argue the contrary case - the interview style is pretty reasonable, but the interviewers screwed up the process (and ultimately, the grading). "Adding additional requirements which test a candidate's ability to refactor code" is a pretty good exercise. And it's ok to force candidates people down a specific development path. The problem is that the interviewers didn't do this. They let the candidate pick a strategy…

> * Author claims to speak English very poorly, but writes incredibly well! Maybe they leaned on LLMs, but this seems pretty good even for an LLM. The author claims their pronunciation is poor. Writing is a completely different skill. (Especially in English with its insane spelling rules.) > * Author says they have 2 years of work experience in a company that doesn't use Typescript, but then proceeds to create a solu…

Each factor alone is within the realm of possible but unlikely. The combination multiplies my skepticism exponentially.

It could be genuine, but I would bet against it.

Re: The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job

#350
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting clever with type systems is exactly why everyone hates Java and OOP. Fizz buzz is also much better treated like data stream and applying reactive programming.

Fizz buzz is a toy problem. I think it’s a mistake to read too much into anything but basic programming skills while using it as an interview question. If you want to test code quality and maintainability you are much better off with a more realistic problem.

Making convoluted solution by solving the problem with type system is showing that OP doesn’t have basic programming skills.

Basic programming skill is also picking right tool for the job.

What he did was worst approach possible.

Post reply on HN