3 ms·

> Unfortunately, the real world business problem that needs to be solved is not "reverse a linked list", but rather "discover the relationship between the widge

by sidlls 9y ago

> Unfortunately, the real world business problem that needs to be solved is not "reverse a linked list", but rather "discover the relationship between the widgez and the widgix that the customer is after". That relationship, once you understand the problem domain, can be discovered by (doing something quite but not exactly like) reversing a linked list. And unfortunately for you, a google search for "discover the relationship between the widgez and the widgix" yields nothing. If you can't (do something similar to) reverse a linked list, you can't deliver the solution. How does testing a candidate on how to reverse a linked list help evaluate his ability to understand that the implementation is an appropriate solution for a given problem?

beagle3 9y ago
It doesn't. A different question will give me indication about that. What reversing a linked list does tell me is, once the solution IS arrived it, that this person can implement it. And I repeat again, I treat this as an abstract version; real world problems often have solutions with many corners and are seldom if ever "Eureka! i just have to reverse the list". Another real world problem I just recall is analogous in many ways to a "git merge" which requires tracing through a huge DAG. In these kinds of things, even if you realize that it's a git-merge, it is often not possible to generate a git repository just so you can run git-merge and observe the result. There are two independent skills: abstracting a problem, and solving an abstract problem. I test for both but the linked list question only addresses the latter.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > There are two independent skills: abstracting a problem, and solving an abstract problem. I test for both but the linked list question only addresses the latter. The problem (heh) with this is that, unless one is actively doing research on improving an existing technology or method, all abstract problems that might come up are already solved. Every solution is one search in google away (including your git example) so there's no point to it. Paraphrasing someone else: if the time spent in coding a problem is expressed as mx + c, m is the time spent in figuring out what the problem is and c is integrating a solution. That c tends to be insignificantly small. Frankly, as someone holding a degree, if you were to interview me and asked me to reverse a linked list, I'd do it, laugh in your face, and walk out. On that point, interestingly, in your earlier examples of people you got feedback from, you didn't mention the most significant one, the one more likely to point out the problems in your process and that would give you actually actionable feedback: the people who rejected the job offer.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    > the people who rejected the job offer. Didn't happen many times, I did ask for feedback, but rarely got any; mostly along "your interview was fair, but I prefer a different offer I received". Which is what I would expect - unlike what some people in this thread expect, the candidate is maximizing their revenue and future benefits; saying anything nontrivial after rejecting the offer is not helping towards either, and potentially harmful. > Frankly, as someone holding a degree, if you were to interview me and asked me to reverse a linked list, I'd do it, laugh in your face, and walk out. That's good, actually. Means we have a culture mismatch, identified early. Win win.
    - julianmarq 9y ago
      > unlike what some people in this thread expect, the candidate is maximizing their revenue and future benefits; saying anything nontrivial after rejecting the offer is not helping towards either, and potentially harmful. I had already noticed a very strong reality distortion field in your other comments[0] but this one is just weird. I have been a candidate, most people in this thread have, exactly why their saying what they'd do is not a reflection of what a candidate might do? For instance, I cannot conceive why saying "anything nontrivial" matters in regards to revenue and future benefits. I've done it before (probably not "laughing in their face" but, then again, I have yet to meet an interviewer with such a clear misplaced arrogance) and so far, rejecting a company and giving feedback has not hurt me in any way; they have no impact on my future because I rejected them. For that matter, how did this even address what I said? I see not how it isn't a non-sequitur, other than you believing that you have a strong enough pull in the industry that you could badmouth me into not getting a job if I rejected your offer and told you it was because your interview was terrible. Of course, that is not the case. > That's good, actually. Means we have a culture mismatch, identified early. Win win. Yeah, no, that wouldn't have been deduced from that interview; one could get a culture mismatch by exposing the applicant to the actual company during the process. What I said would only bring to light that your interview process is terrible and doesn't actually account for people who aren't desperate for getting the job (which, in itself, explains why you think everyone you hire is a sycophant, they probably have to). Of course, I understand your inability to see that it might be a problem with you specifically; no, it must be that the interviewee has a problem with "the culture" of the company. [0]: For instance, there was no majority saying that the creator of homebrew "was in the wrong" regarding his tweet. At most, there was an even split, although there was far more complaining about interview processes like yours.

by sidlls 9y ago

beagle3 9y ago

It doesn't. A different question will give me indication about that. What reversing a linked list does tell me is, once the solution IS arrived it, that this person can implement it. And I repeat again, I treat this as an abstract version; real world problems often have solutions with many corners and are seldom if ever "Eureka! i just have to reverse the list". Another real world problem I just recall is analogous in many ways to a "git merge" which requires tracing through a huge DAG. In these kinds of things, even if you realize that it's a git-merge, it is often not possible to generate a git repository just so you can run git-merge and observe the result. There are two independent skills: abstracting a problem, and solving an abstract problem. I test for both but the linked list question only addresses the latter.

julianmarq 9y ago
> There are two independent skills: abstracting a problem, and solving an abstract problem. I test for both but the linked list question only addresses the latter. The problem (heh) with this is that, unless one is actively doing research on improving an existing technology or method, all abstract problems that might come up are already solved. Every solution is one search in google away (including your git example) so there's no point to it. Paraphrasing someone else: if the time spent in coding a problem is expressed as mx + c, m is the time spent in figuring out what the problem is and c is integrating a solution. That c tends to be insignificantly small. Frankly, as someone holding a degree, if you were to interview me and asked me to reverse a linked list, I'd do it, laugh in your face, and walk out. On that point, interestingly, in your earlier examples of people you got feedback from, you didn't mention the most significant one, the one more likely to point out the problems in your process and that would give you actually actionable feedback: the people who rejected the job offer.
- beagle3 9y ago
  > the people who rejected the job offer. Didn't happen many times, I did ask for feedback, but rarely got any; mostly along "your interview was fair, but I prefer a different offer I received". Which is what I would expect - unlike what some people in this thread expect, the candidate is maximizing their revenue and future benefits; saying anything nontrivial after rejecting the offer is not helping towards either, and potentially harmful. > Frankly, as someone holding a degree, if you were to interview me and asked me to reverse a linked list, I'd do it, laugh in your face, and walk out. That's good, actually. Means we have a culture mismatch, identified early. Win win.
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    > unlike what some people in this thread expect, the candidate is maximizing their revenue and future benefits; saying anything nontrivial after rejecting the offer is not helping towards either, and potentially harmful. I had already noticed a very strong reality distortion field in your other comments[0] but this one is just weird. I have been a candidate, most people in this thread have, exactly why their saying what they'd do is not a reflection of what a candidate might do? For instance, I cannot conceive why saying "anything nontrivial" matters in regards to revenue and future benefits. I've done it before (probably not "laughing in their face" but, then again, I have yet to meet an interviewer with such a clear misplaced arrogance) and so far, rejecting a company and giving feedback has not hurt me in any way; they have no impact on my future because I rejected them. For that matter, how did this even address what I said? I see not how it isn't a non-sequitur, other than you believing that you have a strong enough pull in the industry that you could badmouth me into not getting a job if I rejected your offer and told you it was because your interview was terrible. Of course, that is not the case. > That's good, actually. Means we have a culture mismatch, identified early. Win win. Yeah, no, that wouldn't have been deduced from that interview; one could get a culture mismatch by exposing the applicant to the actual company during the process. What I said would only bring to light that your interview process is terrible and doesn't actually account for people who aren't desperate for getting the job (which, in itself, explains why you think everyone you hire is a sycophant, they probably have to). Of course, I understand your inability to see that it might be a problem with you specifically; no, it must be that the interviewee has a problem with "the culture" of the company. [0]: For instance, there was no majority saying that the creator of homebrew "was in the wrong" regarding his tweet. At most, there was an even split, although there was far more complaining about interview processes like yours.