5 ms·
And here I thought having to do FizzBuzz for two different interviewers was onerous.
by s73v3r_ 8y ago
And here I thought having to do FizzBuzz for two different interviewers was onerous.
- mirceal 8y agoI hope this is a joke
- maxxxxx 8y agoI think that's pretty obvious.
- monocasa 8y agoI've had people get visibly angry with me that I'd dare suggest that they do fizzbuzz.
- maxxxxx 8y agoI think every time somebody starts with "And here I thought...." it's something humorous.
- paulie_a 8y agoBecause it is an incredibly stupid test.
- monocasa 8y agoThat senior devs with decades of experience fail. I've literally seen someone who supposedly wrote firmware for the space shuttle fail fizzbuzz.
- maxxxxx 8y agoYou sometimes have to be careful and look if people are overthinking the problem. I have been in interviews where I was desperately looking for an efficient solution for a problem and couldn't find one while the interviewer only wanted to get a simple for loop.
- monocasa 8y agoHaving sat in that interview he wasn't overthinking it. Despite writing firmware for decades he had never heard of the modulus operator, and when we explained it to him, he didn't see the point of it. Remember those people in college who contributed nothing to the group project, but still somehow squeked by with a C? Those people now have jobs, and some have impressive resumes, particularly from .gov contractors where less than mediocrity reigns unfettered.
- paulie_a 8y agoIf the candidate was verifiably a NASA engineer the person half assed it probably just didn't care. I'm surprised that person just didnt respond with a very intricate set of functions that resulted in a middle finger. That's honestly insulting to use that as a test for a senior. Clearly there was no vetting process prior to a coding evaluation and the hiring process needs a lot of work.
- monocasa 8y agoThey worked for one of NASA's contractors, not NASA itself. Have you been involved in the hiring process? Most of the people actively looking for work don't have a job for a reason. It's not 'insulting' to see if you can even vaguely do the job in an interview. There's only so much vetting you can do before the 'can you vaguely code your way out of a wet paper bag' step. Also: you didnt used to work in Boulder recently, did you?
- paulie_a 8y agoYes I have been involved in that process at multiple companies. If they were in for an actual onsite interview the only thing I cared about was how they effectively they communicate and their thought process to a problem. Vetting isn't hard, the phone screen should have already done that well before a single line of code is written. No I have never worked in Boulder.
- monocasa 8y agoYou literally can't tell until they write code. Having done hundreds of interviews, that's the clearest take away I have. The candidates you're trying to avoid are really good at passing a phone screen since they have a lot of experience at it, constantly looking for jobs.
- paulie_a 8y agoYou literally can tell by asking a couple questions and letting them run on. You can smell bullshit over the phone pretty quickly.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoThe part where I had to do it twice for two different people isn't.
- haloux 8y agoOnerous? If you think 6-20 lines of code is onerous, you really should reconsider your career choice. Polygraphs can produce errors that may be used as a wrongful justification for an employer to dismiss your application. ...on the other hand A fizz buzz application that produces errors _should_ be used as a justification for a potential employer to dismiss you entirely.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoIt was a joke. Except for the part where I had to do it twice.