3 ms·

> Educational background is irrelevant, but all must pass hardcore coding test. This sounds like another example where his hard core coding tests filters for c

> Educational background is irrelevant, but all must pass hardcore coding test. This sounds like another example where his hard core coding tests filters for code-grifters. You know the type: People who game the system by studying L33T coding challenges, and can hack out some nonsense from copy/pasting stackoverflow. They get ‘something’ working, and ship it, and declare that it is done. But when you really investigate it, you find that it is a disaster waiting to happen. And in general, they cannot engineer a formally-verified, fault-tolerant system to control complex systems, complex heavy machinery, and intricate business logic. But, these are the engineers that will pass his hard core coding challenge. Welcome to the so-called world of Software “Engineering”.

wallacoloo 7y ago
> And in general, they cannot engineer a formally-verified, fault-tolerant system Do any automobile manufacturers actually use formal verification? How do you even apply such techniques to things that leverage ML like Tesla’s autonomous driver?
- blackrock 7y ago
  ML for automotive sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. It seems like ML is statistically safe for everyone else, until that moment when you become the “statistic”.
penagwin 7y ago
I always struggled with this. Give me a list of things to memorize and a rigid test - and I'll struggle. Put me in a real environment with access to documentation, actual team members, and time to learn and understand a system? That's where I actually shine. Something I kinda like the idea of for a "code interview" would be a "reverse interview". E.g. give them some sample code (likely from production) and ask them to critique it and review it. I'm no expert in SQL - but I can still spot an injection vector. If I need to use SQL regularly then I'll learn it as needed, etc.
fortran77 7y ago
> And in general, they cannot engineer a formally-verified, fault-tolerant system to control complex systems, complex heavy machinery, and intricate business logic. You wonder why they're not using D or even Rust or Ada to get systems that are more provably safe?
- inimino 7y ago
  It's in the title: "Tons of [...] engineers needed." Good engineers that already know C/C++ are 20x easier to find.
inimino 7y ago
Is this what you assume based on "educational background is irrelevant"? Are you somehow under the mistaken impression that the skills you mention are only learned in school, and only found in those with traditional CS degrees? That sure doesn't align with what I've seen or who I've worked with in my career. Or did you assume that "hardcore coding test" by default only means algorithms questions that you can memorize the answers to? And are you really sure the people "copy/pasting stackoverflow" are the same ones who pass algorithms interviews? Sure doesn't match my experience. In any case, you sure jumped to a lot of conclusions from a single tweet.
ArlenBales 7y ago
> This sounds like another example where his hard core coding tests filters for code-grifters. There is nothing taught in Computer Science at college that can't be learned online. I appreciate that Elon is hiring for skill and knowledge and not a paper that says you graduated from some expensive school and therefore are automatically more qualified.
erydo 7y ago
At some level I agree with your sentiment about shibboleth-style filtering. Not having seen these specific "tests" though, I can charitably imagine these being relevant to fault-tolerance/managed intricacy. Things like, "This code failed. How did it get to that state?" or "X can be interrupted at any time. Implement Y such that it atomically…" are examples of coding challenges that _are_ relevant to being fluent in embedded software development. I really doubt they're asking "implement quicksort"-type questions.
martincmartin 7y ago
I've always wanted to interview someone by giving them some code, and saying "please add such-and-such a feature." I've had interviews before where people have given me code on paper and asked me to critique it; also gave me a program where they'd introduced a bug, and asked me to find the bug. It's a shame these things haven't caught on. Developing green field code is only a tiny fraction of what we do.
nickik 7y ago
Its still better to test yourself then just accepting the stamps people put on their head.
pandaman 7y ago
It's also worth mentioning that a lot of people can learn C++ syntax (and even more C) and solve programming puzzles without any cheating but usually, especially in the context of embedded and/or real-time programming, "C/C++ engineer" means somebody who understands how the computer works and is able to make judgments about performance and correctness of the generated code. So even a competent programmer, who might have spent last decade writing GUI in Qt, could be practically worthless for real-time embedded C/C++ while passing any whiteboard tests.

wallacoloo 7y ago

> And in general, they cannot engineer a formally-verified, fault-tolerant system Do any automobile manufacturers actually use formal verification? How do you even apply such techniques to things that leverage ML like Tesla’s autonomous driver?

blackrock 7y ago
ML for automotive sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. It seems like ML is statistically safe for everyone else, until that moment when you become the “statistic”.

penagwin 7y ago

I always struggled with this. Give me a list of things to memorize and a rigid test - and I'll struggle. Put me in a real environment with access to documentation, actual team members, and time to learn and understand a system? That's where I actually shine. Something I kinda like the idea of for a "code interview" would be a "reverse interview". E.g. give them some sample code (likely from production) and ask them to critique it and review it. I'm no expert in SQL - but I can still spot an injection vector. If I need to use SQL regularly then I'll learn it as needed, etc.

fortran77 7y ago

> And in general, they cannot engineer a formally-verified, fault-tolerant system to control complex systems, complex heavy machinery, and intricate business logic. You wonder why they're not using D or even Rust or Ada to get systems that are more provably safe?

inimino 7y ago
It's in the title: "Tons of [...] engineers needed." Good engineers that already know C/C++ are 20x easier to find.

inimino 7y ago

Is this what you assume based on "educational background is irrelevant"? Are you somehow under the mistaken impression that the skills you mention are only learned in school, and only found in those with traditional CS degrees? That sure doesn't align with what I've seen or who I've worked with in my career. Or did you assume that "hardcore coding test" by default only means algorithms questions that you can memorize the answers to? And are you really sure the people "copy/pasting stackoverflow" are the same ones who pass algorithms interviews? Sure doesn't match my experience. In any case, you sure jumped to a lot of conclusions from a single tweet.

ArlenBales 7y ago

> This sounds like another example where his hard core coding tests filters for code-grifters. There is nothing taught in Computer Science at college that can't be learned online. I appreciate that Elon is hiring for skill and knowledge and not a paper that says you graduated from some expensive school and therefore are automatically more qualified.

erydo 7y ago

At some level I agree with your sentiment about shibboleth-style filtering. Not having seen these specific "tests" though, I can charitably imagine these being relevant to fault-tolerance/managed intricacy. Things like, "This code failed. How did it get to that state?" or "X can be interrupted at any time. Implement Y such that it atomically…" are examples of coding challenges that _are_ relevant to being fluent in embedded software development. I really doubt they're asking "implement quicksort"-type questions.

martincmartin 7y ago

I've always wanted to interview someone by giving them some code, and saying "please add such-and-such a feature." I've had interviews before where people have given me code on paper and asked me to critique it; also gave me a program where they'd introduced a bug, and asked me to find the bug. It's a shame these things haven't caught on. Developing green field code is only a tiny fraction of what we do.

nickik 7y ago

Its still better to test yourself then just accepting the stamps people put on their head.

pandaman 7y ago

It's also worth mentioning that a lot of people can learn C++ syntax (and even more C) and solve programming puzzles without any cheating but usually, especially in the context of embedded and/or real-time programming, "C/C++ engineer" means somebody who understands how the computer works and is able to make judgments about performance and correctness of the generated code. So even a competent programmer, who might have spent last decade writing GUI in Qt, could be practically worthless for real-time embedded C/C++ while passing any whiteboard tests.