3 ms·
I don't do well on on the spot programming interviews. studying doesn't help. I can identify what needs to be done almost always, but implementing it in front o
by nuna 8y ago
I don't do well on on the spot programming interviews. studying doesn't help. I can identify what needs to be done almost always, but implementing it in front of someone in only 40 mins? I need to practice that I guess. In the end as you said, I am constantly wondering what being able to regurgitate a memorized problem tells them about me (nothing) and why they don't care about my past experience, projects, successes and ratings. However, this is what every software interview is now
- metters 8y ago> I need to practice that I guess. You are right about that, at least according to that article here:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18942572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18942572 That guy trained on a well known website to solving minor coding issues and then (that's the important part) practised solving them in mock interviews to real persons. Maybe that could help you.
- joeax 8y agoNeither does this famous guy [1]. All these interviews do is waste a lot of time and generate a lot of false negatives. You can practice all you want to get better, but no one in the corporate world is saying "I need you to code bubble sort, and I need in the next 45 minutes" and then proceeds to stand over your shoulder the entire time. [1] https://twitter.com/dhh/status/834146806594433025 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/834146806594433025
- bootlooped 8y agoFor big companies that have a ton of applicants, the false-negative rate probably doesn't matter all that much. They need a quick way to narrow the field. As for wasting a lot of time, what more reliable method is there that takes less time than a leetcode-style problem? Surely there are more reliable methods, they probably don't take 30 minutes or less though.