3 ms·

Also: * The ridiculous nosql fad that led to a tsunami of databases with horribly invalid data because constraints aren't sexy. * The ridiculous academic feti

Also: * The ridiculous nosql fad that led to a tsunami of databases with horribly invalid data because constraints aren't sexy. * The ridiculous academic fetish that triggered the leetcode phenomenon and led to a tsunami of developers who can code a quicksort in their sleep but still don't have the first clue about structuring code or data properly.

triceratops 7y ago
> developers who can code a quicksort in their sleep but still don't have the first clue about structuring code or data properly. I don't understand this belief. Where does it come from? Junior engineers don't have the first clue about structuring code or data properly, whereas senior engineers do. Google's belief (probably) is that anyone able to quicksort in their sleep is either already good at the other stuff too, or is smart enough to pick it up over time. If they're wrong, companies will outhire and outcompete them eventually.
- crdoconnor 7y ago
  >Google's belief (probably) is that anyone able to quicksort in their sleep is either already good at the other stuff too, or is smart enough to pick it up over time. Exactly. This belief that the two correlate closely enough that you can supplant one kind of test (physically writing code, discussing it and architecting it) with another (leetcode) is massively, horre ndously wrong and damaging. The two do not correlate well. They correlate very badly.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    > The two do not correlate well. They correlate very badly. Do you have any evidence? It seems to be working rather well for the companies that follow these practices. You may speak derisively of "leetcoding" but it does demonstrate persistence, grit, speed of thought, and/or the ability to learn something difficult (algorithms, data structures, competition-style programming). It's not crazy to posit that people who are able to learn one hard thing well will probably also learn other hard things well. In fact, it should be the other way around. Why in the world would someone hardworking and intelligent not be able to pick up new skills? To me it's absolutely insane that being good at architecture and good at algorithms and data structures are seen as mutually exclusive skills. They're not skiing and barbecuing. Now I'll concede that Leetcode-style interviews are a terrible and stupid way for smaller companies to hire, because they don't have the candidate pipeline of a Google or FB or Amazon. But it isn't a wrong approach in and of itself. If that's true, someone should be making bank by hiring all the scores of talented devs that the megacorps reject for not being good "Leetcoders". Plus, surely you're aware that the megacorps also have system-design interviews for all but entry-level candidates? That's where you're asked about architecture, tradeoffs, and high-level design decisions.
    - crdoconnor 7y ago
      I don't have studies but my experience of those who excel in leetcode is that they suck at system design and good programming practices - largely because they focused on leetcode to the exclusion of all else. They "hacked" the programming interview. And while hacking the programming interview does demonstrate grit and persistence, it doesn't demonstrate actual programming skills. The worst part though is that it generates a mindset that "good programming skills" means "even more advanced leetcode". I don't begrudge these people. A set of absurd incentives was put in place and they reacted to them accordingly. It isn't good for Google either. The hires that came after this philosophy have achieved very little of note. The vast majority of post Gmail abject project failures have been built in house while the successes (maps, android) were bought.
      - triceratops 7y ago
        > I don't have studies but my experience Cool, so anecdotes, not actual data. > it doesn't demonstrate actual programming skills. It demonstrates ability to learn difficult things. You still haven't answered why junior devs hired this way are somehow incapable of learning good architectural practices. You also didn't address the fact that most of these companies also interview senior hires for system design and architecture. > The hires that came after this philosophy have achieved very little of note Photos. Chrome. Brain. Tensorflow. Kubernetes. Even Android didn't take off until 6 years after its acquisition. I don't have the time to research more but you get the idea.

triceratops 7y ago

> developers who can code a quicksort in their sleep but still don't have the first clue about structuring code or data properly. I don't understand this belief. Where does it come from? Junior engineers don't have the first clue about structuring code or data properly, whereas senior engineers do. Google's belief (probably) is that anyone able to quicksort in their sleep is either already good at the other stuff too, or is smart enough to pick it up over time. If they're wrong, companies will outhire and outcompete them eventually.

crdoconnor 7y ago
>Google's belief (probably) is that anyone able to quicksort in their sleep is either already good at the other stuff too, or is smart enough to pick it up over time. Exactly. This belief that the two correlate closely enough that you can supplant one kind of test (physically writing code, discussing it and architecting it) with another (leetcode) is massively, horre ndously wrong and damaging. The two do not correlate well. They correlate very badly.
- triceratops 7y ago
  > The two do not correlate well. They correlate very badly. Do you have any evidence? It seems to be working rather well for the companies that follow these practices. You may speak derisively of "leetcoding" but it does demonstrate persistence, grit, speed of thought, and/or the ability to learn something difficult (algorithms, data structures, competition-style programming). It's not crazy to posit that people who are able to learn one hard thing well will probably also learn other hard things well. In fact, it should be the other way around. Why in the world would someone hardworking and intelligent not be able to pick up new skills? To me it's absolutely insane that being good at architecture and good at algorithms and data structures are seen as mutually exclusive skills. They're not skiing and barbecuing. Now I'll concede that Leetcode-style interviews are a terrible and stupid way for smaller companies to hire, because they don't have the candidate pipeline of a Google or FB or Amazon. But it isn't a wrong approach in and of itself. If that's true, someone should be making bank by hiring all the scores of talented devs that the megacorps reject for not being good "Leetcoders". Plus, surely you're aware that the megacorps also have system-design interviews for all but entry-level candidates? That's where you're asked about architecture, tradeoffs, and high-level design decisions.
  - crdoconnor 7y ago
    I don't have studies but my experience of those who excel in leetcode is that they suck at system design and good programming practices - largely because they focused on leetcode to the exclusion of all else. They "hacked" the programming interview. And while hacking the programming interview does demonstrate grit and persistence, it doesn't demonstrate actual programming skills. The worst part though is that it generates a mindset that "good programming skills" means "even more advanced leetcode". I don't begrudge these people. A set of absurd incentives was put in place and they reacted to them accordingly. It isn't good for Google either. The hires that came after this philosophy have achieved very little of note. The vast majority of post Gmail abject project failures have been built in house while the successes (maps, android) were bought.
    - triceratops 7y ago
      > I don't have studies but my experience Cool, so anecdotes, not actual data. > it doesn't demonstrate actual programming skills. It demonstrates ability to learn difficult things. You still haven't answered why junior devs hired this way are somehow incapable of learning good architectural practices. You also didn't address the fact that most of these companies also interview senior hires for system design and architecture. > The hires that came after this philosophy have achieved very little of note Photos. Chrome. Brain. Tensorflow. Kubernetes. Even Android didn't take off until 6 years after its acquisition. I don't have the time to research more but you get the idea.