71–80 of 551 posts
SAT, SMT, and constraint solvers are criminally underutilized in the software industry. We need more education about what they are, how they work, and what sorts of problems they can solve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone solves a leetcode hard with a constraint solver and you don't hire them, you are an idiot. Do you know how few people in this world even know what a constraint solver is, let alone how to correctly define the problem into one? I used a constraint solver to solve a homework problem once in my CS degree 3rd year. My god just writing the damn constraints was a huge cognitive load!
> If someone solves a leetcode hard with a constraint solver and you don't hire them, you are an idiot. I do hope you're exagerating here, but in case you aren't: this is an extremely simplistic view of what (software) engineers have to do, and thus what hiring managers should optimize for. I'd put "ability to work in a team" above "raw academic/reasoning ability" for the vast majority of engineering roles, any day.…
Great insight. But this is sadly not applicable to interviews. > It's easy to do in O(n^2) time, or if you are clever, you can do it in O(n). Or you could be not clever at all and just write it as a constraint problem This nails it. The point of these problems is to test your cleverness. That's it. Presenting a not-clever solution of using constraint solvers shows that you have experience and your breadth of knowledg…
>The point of these problems is to test your cleverness. In my experience, interviewers love going to the Leetcode "Top Interview 150" list and using problems in the "Array String" category. I'm not a fan of these problems for the kind of jobs I've interviewed for (backend Python mostly), as they are almost always a "give me a O(n) runtime O(1) memory algorithm over this array" type challenge that really doesn't rese…
You need to make sure a candidate can program so asking programing question make sense. However the candidate should not be judged on if they finish or get an optimal or even correct answer. You need to know if they write good code that you can understand, and are on a path that if given a reasonable amount of time on a realistic story would finish it and get it correct. If someone has seen the problem before they may get the correct answer, but if they have not seen it they won't know and shouldn't expected to get the right answer in an hour.
I feel like if I'm being asked this in an interview, they're not asking me to use a constraint solver, they're asking me to _write_ a constraint solver. Just for a specific constraint problem, not a more general constraint solver.
You're right, but that just shows how fundamentally silly this interview approach is. In any real engineering situation I can solve 100% of these problems. That's because I can get a cup of coffee, read some papers, look in a textbook, go for a walk somewhere green and think hard about it... and yes, use tooling like a constraint solver. Or an LLM, which knows all these algorithms off by heart! In an interview, I cou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given this consider that LeetCode solving is rarely ever part of your work. So then, what are they selecting for with the habit?
Selecting for people like themselves.
Like in race? Like in wealth? Like in defection willingness? Like in corruption?
Asking for a friend who is regularly identified as among the most skilled but feels their career has been significantly derailed by this social phenomenon.
Because of this, I've just started rejecting outright leetcode/ai interview steps... I'll do homework, shared screen, 1:1, etc, but won't do the above. I tend to fail them about half the time. It only feels worse in instances, where I wouldn't even mind the studying on leetcode types sites if they actually had decent explainers for the questions and working answers when going through them. I know this kind of defeats the challenge aspect, but learning is about 10x harder without it.
It's not a matter of skill, it's just my ability to take in certain types of problems doesn't work well. Without any chance of additional info/questions it's literally a setup to fail.
edit: I'm mostly referring to the use of AI/Automated leetcode type questions as a pre-interview screening. If you haven't seen this type of thing, good for you. I've seen too much of it. I'm fine with relatively hard questions in an actual interview with a real, live person you can talk to and ask clarifying questions.
Great insight. But this is sadly not applicable to interviews. > It's easy to do in O(n^2) time, or if you are clever, you can do it in O(n). Or you could be not clever at all and just write it as a constraint problem This nails it. The point of these problems is to test your cleverness. That's it. Presenting a not-clever solution of using constraint solvers shows that you have experience and your breadth of knowledg…
All of the ones listed can be solved with a top down dynamic programing algorithm. Which just means "write recursive solution, add caching to memoize it".
For some of these, you can get cleverer. For example the coin change problem is better solved with an A* search.
Still, very few programmers will actually need these algorithms. The top thing we need is to recognize when we accidentally wrote a quadratic algorithm. A quick scan of https://accidentallyquadratic.tumblr.com/ shows that even good people on prominent projects make that mistake on a constant basis. So apparently being able to produce an algorithm on the test, doesn't translate to catching an algorithmic mistake in the wild.
Great insight. But this is sadly not applicable to interviews. > It's easy to do in O(n^2) time, or if you are clever, you can do it in O(n). Or you could be not clever at all and just write it as a constraint problem This nails it. The point of these problems is to test your cleverness. That's it. Presenting a not-clever solution of using constraint solvers shows that you have experience and your breadth of knowledg…
When I interview with problem solving problems, the point is to understand how the candidate thinks, communicates, and decomposes problems. Critically, problem solving questions should have ways to progressively increase and decrease difficulty/complexity, so every candidate "gets a win" and no candidate "dunks the ball". Interviewers learn nothing from an instant epiphany, and they learn next to nothing from someone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I interview with problem solving problems, the point is to understand how the candidate thinks, communicates, and decomposes problems. Critically, problem solving questions should have ways to progressively increase and decrease difficulty/complexity, so every candidate "gets a win" and no candidate "dunks the ball". Interviewers learn nothing from an instant epiphany, and they learn next to nothing from someone…
> the point is to understand how the candidate thinks, communicates, and decomposes problems. 100% and it's a shame that over time this has become completely lost knowledge, on both sides of the interview table, and "leetcode" is now seen as an arbitrary rote memorization hurdle/hazing ritual that software engineers have to pass to enter a lucrative FAANG career. Interviewees grind problems until they've memorized ev…