5 ms·

Should one need Google access to do a fizz buzz type of programs?

• andrewstuart 10y ago
  The whole point is that if you are properly testing candidates then it is an open test and there's no point in theoretical tests like fizzbuzz when it is open book. The correct solution to fizzbuzz in an open book test is to search Google for "optimal fizzbuzz solution in language X". It forces the employer to create a test that is more real world and thus is a closer reflection of the actual work being done at that company. Unless of course your company is doing alot of real world fizzbuzz.
  • flukus 10y ago
    That would defeat the point of fizzbuzz in the first place. It's to see if they can translate rules into code, to see if they understand the very basics of programming. If they google "optimal fizzbuzz solution in language X" then you're seeing if they can copy and paste code. There is plenty of room for more open tests, but fizzbuzz doesn't require it.
    • freework 10y ago
      > then you're seeing if they can copy and paste code. Thats the job though. Most jobs include a lot of googling + copy/paste.
      • flukus 10y ago
        It's not the job. If that was the job they'd hire kids out of high school to do it.
    • andrewstuart 10y ago
      >> That would defeat the point of fizzbuzz in the first place. That's precisely my point. If your selection process includes fizzbuzz then your selection process is ineffective.
      • flukus 10y ago
        So how do you filter out people that manage to have successful software careers despite not being able to code?
        • freework 10y ago
          The same way all other industries do it, by asking the candidates questions and judging their capability based on how they answer said questions. How do hospitals hire doctors? How do law firms hire lawyers? How do insurance companies hire insurance salesmen?
          • deleted 10y ago
            [deleted]
          • flukus 10y ago
            > How do hospitals hire doctors? How do law firms hire lawyers? Both of those examples have rigorous training requirements before it's even legal to call yourself one and even then they still have some level of fraud. Anyone can call themselves a programmer and the only real world requirement is being able to program.
      • PeterisP 10y ago
        Can you provide a more effective first filter that can solve the same problem (discarding the 50%+ candidates that have zero programming ability and shouldn't have applied in the first place) quicker than fizzbuzz? There are many, many approaches that will also filter them out, but the point of fizzbuzz is to do it immediately without wasting a lot of time of your engineers on candidates that can and should be discarded within five minutes.
  • donw 10y ago
    I suspect that you are thinking of FizzBuzz differently than it was originally intended. FizzBuzz is not designed as a test of real-world programming skills; rather, it is a deliberately easy test to ensure that a candidate can solve an elementary programming problem from scratch. The idea being, that somebody that can not solve a trivial problem is in no shape to tackle a harder problem. Many companies overthink this. They add TDD, or try and test if a candidate can implement Dijkstra's Shortest-Path Algorithm, or any number of other complications. But that all misses the point of what FizzBuzz does. FizzBuzz is a first-stage filter, and exists only to screen out copy-pasta programmers that, while their resumes might look good on paper, can't actually code. There are a lot of those programmers out there, even today. FizzBuzz should take a candidate no more than five minutes in a language they are familiar with. It really should be that level of simple. After FizzBuzz is when you can dive into the real-world problems, because the candidate has demonstrated that they can write code. Now, admittedly, I have moved past FizzBuzz, and now prefer doing a simple pairing exercise over-the-phone, but FizzBuzz is still a useful tool in the interviewing toolbox for companies that don't use pair programming. If you do use FizzBuzz, I do recommend changing it up. Don't just copy Atwood's FizzBuzz problem. Change the numbers, mix the conditionals around, that sort of thing. But keep it just as simple.
    • vacri 10y ago
      > FizzBuzz is a first-stage filter, and exists only to screen out copy-pasta programmers that, while their resumes might look good on paper, can't actually code. I said recently in another thread that the lead tech at my company was complaining during one round of interviews for a senior position, that some of the candidates couldn't even conceptually 'get' FizzBuzz, let alone code it. > FizzBuzz should take a candidate no more than five minutes in a language they are familiar with I'll go a step further and say that if you're the kind of person that takes FizzBuzz as a personal insult, then you should be able to write it out in 60 seconds max, and move on with the interview. FizzBuzz is not for 'you', it's for the people who claim to be as good as 'you', so take it easy and move on. Complaining about FizzBuzz is like complaining about having a police check done, even though you don't have a criminal record. The check isn't for 'you', the innocent person.
  • pkaye 10y ago
    There is some base level of knowledge I expect of a candidate without having to search Google.