3 ms·

> It's not understood well enough to say "this is the way to do this thing". Thus all the bike shedding. Most of the "reverse a binary tree" and "write a link

> It's not understood well enough to say "this is the way to do this thing". Thus all the bike shedding. Most of the "reverse a binary tree" and "write a linked list" and other problems that use common data structures/algorithms (e.g. depth first search) are pretty bounded sets of problems, surely you could test on those? I agree that the rest of software engineering is quite loose, my idea was more to set a "baseline" so that when companies interview someone, they can skip the "hey can you reverse a binary tree?" test and jump straight to the most interesting stuff like soft skills and so on.

shados 9y ago
> Most of the "reverse a binary tree" and "write a linked list" and other problems that use common data structures/algorithms (e.g. depth first search) are pretty bounded sets of problems, surely you could test on those? That's like testing a home renovation contractor by asking them to pierce a hole with a drill. They should 100% absolutely know how to do it and its critical to their job, but it's not exactly what makes them qualified for it.
- djhworld 9y ago
  > but it's not exactly what makes them qualified for it. No, which is why the interview should be testing on more interesting stuff like system design, team based skills, other technical minutae that might be relevant to the job. I just feel like compaonies waste a lot of time and resources on "reverse a binary tree" and "do the travelling salesman" type problems. I understand why they have to, because there's nothing out there to say "X candidate knows how to reverse a binary tree", so they have to test on it to make sure at least the baseline stuff is there. And they keep retesting. If a candidate moves from company to company they get the same test, regardless of levels of experience. It just seems like something that could be nipped in the bud with a certificate/qualification
  - shados 9y ago
    Fair enough. Though we have college diplomas and certifications. People just cheat a lot. Other professions generally have significant checks and balance (eg: inspections after renovation, all the regulations around health care, etc). And even then lots of bad things happen. I guess we could start keeping software engineers legally accountable for stuff...but that doesn't sound super fun to me.

shados 9y ago

> Most of the "reverse a binary tree" and "write a linked list" and other problems that use common data structures/algorithms (e.g. depth first search) are pretty bounded sets of problems, surely you could test on those? That's like testing a home renovation contractor by asking them to pierce a hole with a drill. They should 100% absolutely know how to do it and its critical to their job, but it's not exactly what makes them qualified for it.

djhworld 9y ago
> but it's not exactly what makes them qualified for it. No, which is why the interview should be testing on more interesting stuff like system design, team based skills, other technical minutae that might be relevant to the job. I just feel like compaonies waste a lot of time and resources on "reverse a binary tree" and "do the travelling salesman" type problems. I understand why they have to, because there's nothing out there to say "X candidate knows how to reverse a binary tree", so they have to test on it to make sure at least the baseline stuff is there. And they keep retesting. If a candidate moves from company to company they get the same test, regardless of levels of experience. It just seems like something that could be nipped in the bud with a certificate/qualification
- shados 9y ago
  Fair enough. Though we have college diplomas and certifications. People just cheat a lot. Other professions generally have significant checks and balance (eg: inspections after renovation, all the regulations around health care, etc). And even then lots of bad things happen. I guess we could start keeping software engineers legally accountable for stuff...but that doesn't sound super fun to me.