5 ms·

Everything else I've mentioned you should know cold [...] You have a lot of warming up to do. Real-world work makes you rusty. Those quotes make it sound like

by sah 19y ago

Everything else I've mentioned you should know cold [...] You have a lot of warming up to do. Real-world work makes you rusty. Those quotes make it sound like Google's interview process is biased toward people who know a lot of basic-CS trivia. If real-world work makes you rusty, doesn't that imply that the interview is favoring people who have studied up on certain things such that they know them better than they actually need to? I would agree that a good candidate should have been familiar with the details of everything Yegge mentions at some point. But is there really much value in knowing these things "cold", rather than merely knowing them "warm"?

utnick 19y ago
yea I don't really see the point of memorizing CS trivia when A) I can google it if I ever need to know B) Most languages today have support for graphs, trees, and sorts, and other cs trivia things built in or via stable libraries It seems like a potential employee's ability to 'get things done' would be more important
- menloparkbum 19y ago
  It isn't trivia. You can "get things done" a lot faster when you don't have to A) google all week for the answer or B) try out multiple half-baked implementations. I don't have an issue with Gooogle's requirement to know what you are doing, but unfortunately I think the interesting jobs at Google are becoming few and far between.
  - sah 19y ago
    I feel like there is a focus on what I would call trivial details built into the assumption that a good candidate should be able to explain how all of these things work in an interview. There's a huge difference between not knowing why you might want to keep a binary tree balanced and not knowing how red/black trees work off the top of your head. If you've heard of them and know what they're good for, you can look them up in a few seconds when you need them. Of course, a talented hacker will know the details of some data structures and algorithms. I'd be far more impressed with a candidate who could tell me in detail about recent uses of a couple more unusual data structures and algorithms than with a candidate who knew all the classics in detail but nothing unusual.
geebee 19y ago
I blew an interview recently because of this. Of course, I can't be 100% sure this is why, because I interviewed for six hours, but it was the only part where I felt like I wasn't doing well. I really fumbled at the whiteboard on some tree walking algorithms . If I had reviewed my data structures and algorithms book, I would have rocked these questions. What could have come off as a strong point instead came off as weak and rusty. I do think that the company lost out on a good hire because of this. The job requires some specialized math, as well as domain knowledge and programming ability. I don't think there are many people will this skillset. But next time, I will most definitely review this material prior to the interview, because it really cost me.

by sah 19y ago

utnick 19y ago

yea I don't really see the point of memorizing CS trivia when A) I can google it if I ever need to know B) Most languages today have support for graphs, trees, and sorts, and other cs trivia things built in or via stable libraries It seems like a potential employee's ability to 'get things done' would be more important

menloparkbum 19y ago
It isn't trivia. You can "get things done" a lot faster when you don't have to A) google all week for the answer or B) try out multiple half-baked implementations. I don't have an issue with Gooogle's requirement to know what you are doing, but unfortunately I think the interesting jobs at Google are becoming few and far between.
- sah 19y ago
  I feel like there is a focus on what I would call trivial details built into the assumption that a good candidate should be able to explain how all of these things work in an interview. There's a huge difference between not knowing why you might want to keep a binary tree balanced and not knowing how red/black trees work off the top of your head. If you've heard of them and know what they're good for, you can look them up in a few seconds when you need them. Of course, a talented hacker will know the details of some data structures and algorithms. I'd be far more impressed with a candidate who could tell me in detail about recent uses of a couple more unusual data structures and algorithms than with a candidate who knew all the classics in detail but nothing unusual.

geebee 19y ago

I blew an interview recently because of this. Of course, I can't be 100% sure this is why, because I interviewed for six hours, but it was the only part where I felt like I wasn't doing well. I really fumbled at the whiteboard on some tree walking algorithms . If I had reviewed my data structures and algorithms book, I would have rocked these questions. What could have come off as a strong point instead came off as weak and rusty. I do think that the company lost out on a good hire because of this. The job requires some specialized math, as well as domain knowledge and programming ability. I don't think there are many people will this skillset. But next time, I will most definitely review this material prior to the interview, because it really cost me.