3 ms·
> I also don't think you should expect to get real work out of someone before you hire them, either. This has grown on me. It's a lot of time invested per comp
by lj3 10y ago
> I also don't think you should expect to get real work out of someone before you hire them, either.
This has grown on me. It's a lot of time invested per company, but it's still a hell of a lot less time than the interview prep mentioned in the article. It's also more pleasant, since I'm programming something real instead of the fibonacci sequence.
- dpark 10y agoI don't honestly think you're going to get much more than Fibonacci in a one day pair programming session on an unknown codebase. It's just too much to learn before you can really accomplish anything. Beyond one or maybe two days it just becomes an unreasonable request, regardless of whether they pay you.
- lj3 10y agoOh, I think I misunderstood what you meant by "get real work" out of somebody. IMHO, pair programming isn't getting real work out of somebody. I'm with tptacek on this one: take home programming tests. Specifically, tests where they give you specs for something and you build it however you like.
- dpark 10y agoI'm ok with something like that if it's a reasonable amount of work, and if it's not going to be followed up with the standard interview loop. Extremely long take home work is unreasonable to me. Studying for interviews is at least applicable to many companies. A take home is just for the one. And if it's followed up with a normal interview loop, then it's just more but not better.