3 ms·

"Points"? That kind of oversight is simply unacceptable in a modern, agile engineering environment. Especially not in the august company of hand-picked, top-s

"Points"? That kind of oversight is simply unacceptable in a modern, agile engineering environment. Especially not in the august company of hand-picked, top-shelf developers such as you've been able to compose your build your team out of, thus far. So I'd fire them (or that is, shift ever-so-glibly to "Do you have any questions for me?" mode) on the spot. And instruct my internal recruiter to make a point of not bothering with any kind of follow-up after the interview -- dense as they are, sooner or later they'll get the hint.† † Again, I'm being blatantly facetious. But this is exactly how the "modern" (Google-inspired) interview process seems to work much of the time, in practice.

ggggtez 10y ago
Is there something wrong with not wanting someone to write an n^2 function that should only take O(n)? And the person who wrote this is supposedly giving advice on how to pass such interviews for "top-shelf" programmers. So I don't see how complaining about the existence of the process is relevant.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Is there something wrong with not wanting someone to write an n^2 function that should only take O(n)? But that's not what the typical whiteboard session actually assesses -- that is, whether you'd never catch yourself, in the normal course of development, from implementing a grossly inefficient algorithm before catching yourself, and long before significant damage has been done. BTW the operative phrase here is "normal"; as in, the normal unhurried pace at which we work, with time to reflect on these things during coffee and bathroom breaks. And of course without being surrounded by tag teams of 20-something dudes you've never met, comfortably assessing your every move -- secure in the knowledge that they'll still be in a reasonably tolerable job, no matter what, at the end of the afternoon; but as to whether you'll get out of your current situation -- that's a total crapshoot, of course.† What they test, rather, is whether your immediate, muscle-memory recall of the complexity class for each and every use case is 100% correct -- subject to the above-mentioned adverse conditions. Because no matter what they say about "just wanting to see how you think through a problem" -- in reality these quickly devolve into zombie-like grading sessions (and, depending on your state of nourishment and general composure, sometimes outright death marches). Where -- very much unlike under real working conditions -- at the slightest misstep, however temporary -- you start losing "points", and very significantly risk the prospect of failing the process altogether. So I don't see how complaining about the existence of the process is relevant. It's an observation about a process that has been widely observed to be deeply flawed, on multiple fronts. There's no need to label it as a complaint. † Like as not, without adequate breaks for nourishment or bathroom needs -- or a significant portion of the time, without a break of any kind -- during the whole multi-hour ordeal.

ggggtez 10y ago

Is there something wrong with not wanting someone to write an n^2 function that should only take O(n)? And the person who wrote this is supposedly giving advice on how to pass such interviews for "top-shelf" programmers. So I don't see how complaining about the existence of the process is relevant.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Is there something wrong with not wanting someone to write an n^2 function that should only take O(n)? But that's not what the typical whiteboard session actually assesses -- that is, whether you'd never catch yourself, in the normal course of development, from implementing a grossly inefficient algorithm before catching yourself, and long before significant damage has been done. BTW the operative phrase here is "normal"; as in, the normal unhurried pace at which we work, with time to reflect on these things during coffee and bathroom breaks. And of course without being surrounded by tag teams of 20-something dudes you've never met, comfortably assessing your every move -- secure in the knowledge that they'll still be in a reasonably tolerable job, no matter what, at the end of the afternoon; but as to whether you'll get out of your current situation -- that's a total crapshoot, of course.† What they test, rather, is whether your immediate, muscle-memory recall of the complexity class for each and every use case is 100% correct -- subject to the above-mentioned adverse conditions. Because no matter what they say about "just wanting to see how you think through a problem" -- in reality these quickly devolve into zombie-like grading sessions (and, depending on your state of nourishment and general composure, sometimes outright death marches). Where -- very much unlike under real working conditions -- at the slightest misstep, however temporary -- you start losing "points", and very significantly risk the prospect of failing the process altogether. So I don't see how complaining about the existence of the process is relevant. It's an observation about a process that has been widely observed to be deeply flawed, on multiple fronts. There's no need to label it as a complaint. † Like as not, without adequate breaks for nourishment or bathroom needs -- or a significant portion of the time, without a break of any kind -- during the whole multi-hour ordeal.