2 ms·

Your comment about generating my response by saying one letter at a time before typing it made me stop and think - thank you for the insight. However, I still

Your comment about generating my response by saying one letter at a time before typing it made me stop and think - thank you for the insight. However, I still don't think it's a sufficient response. I agree completely that writing code on a whiteboard is utterly alien to some people, and is so completely divorced from their usual way of working that it's unlikely to give a true picture of how they will code in the real job. But we're not asking for an insight into how they will code in the real job. We're asking if they can write something like, say, FizzBuzz. More, we're not even asking them to be syntactically flawless and optimally efficient. We're asking if there's any chance that they'll produce working code at all. I agree that there is to some extent just a disagreement about where to draw the line, and how detailed/accurate the solution has to be, but my experience is broadly in line with the worst claims - 95% of people who approach me for a job in programming can't write code at all. For the remainder I'll ask how they usually write code, and then collorate with them on something more complex to see how they work.

timr 17y ago
"But we're not asking for an insight into how they will code in the real job. We're asking if they can write something like, say, FizzBuzz. More, we're not even asking them to be syntactically flawless and optimally efficient. We're asking if there's any chance that they'll produce working code at all." In practice, few people are asking questions that are as easy as FizzBuzz. I've been through a lot of programming interviews, and I have yet to encounter a problem of that simplicity as an interview exercise. Instead, most companies seem far more interested in laying down the gauntlet, so that they can convince everyone (including themselves) that they only hire "the best". It sounds like you're trying to keep your programming interviews sane, and that's great. But the problems happen when the other 98% of programmers convince themselves that whiteboarding exercises can be used to successfully discriminate the best of the best from the merely good. One needs only look at the other comments on this page to see that there's a huge and disjoint set of skills that define "competency" to different people.

timr 17y ago

"But we're not asking for an insight into how they will code in the real job. We're asking if they can write something like, say, FizzBuzz. More, we're not even asking them to be syntactically flawless and optimally efficient. We're asking if there's any chance that they'll produce working code at all." In practice, few people are asking questions that are as easy as FizzBuzz. I've been through a lot of programming interviews, and I have yet to encounter a problem of that simplicity as an interview exercise. Instead, most companies seem far more interested in laying down the gauntlet, so that they can convince everyone (including themselves) that they only hire "the best". It sounds like you're trying to keep your programming interviews sane, and that's great. But the problems happen when the other 98% of programmers convince themselves that whiteboarding exercises can be used to successfully discriminate the best of the best from the merely good. One needs only look at the other comments on this page to see that there's a huge and disjoint set of skills that define "competency" to different people.