4 ms·
> But we also do a "technical interview" with some fizzbuzz stuff Why does anyone still think this is a good interview technique that provides any valuable met
by tcbasche 7y ago
> But we also do a "technical interview" with some fizzbuzz stuff
Why does anyone still think this is a good interview technique that provides any valuable metrics?
- dyingkneepad 7y agoBecause in the past we hired some programmers that were really good at BS-ing during interview and really crappy at programming. So now we make sure we hire people who know what "a &= b" does in C and what a #define statement achieves.
- tcbasche 7y agoI'm not saying you don't screen them at all with a technical task, but it should be something representative of what your organisation does, rather than some overdone toy problem
- dyingkneepad 7y agoWhen I said 'fizzbuzz-like' I meant a simple program that is representative of what we do in the organization. Fizzbuzz is supposed to be a simple challenge as far as I'm aware. Stuff like flipping bits with & and |, or knowing how to use preprocessor macros (since we abuse macros a lot). Or awareness of function pointers.
- tcbasche 7y agoI guess I missed that fizzbuzz now means things like fizzbuzz, rather than actual challenge
- codingdave 7y agoBecause there are still people who can look good on paper, and even talk their way through interviews, but can't actually code. You do not need the multiple-hour-whiteboard overkill that some places do, but you do need at least one coding gate to prove their resume is not a sham.
- ccajas 7y agoI look at FizzBuzz as a "assert" test before the thorough evaluation. It should be logically impossible for an experienced developer to not pass a simple test like that. Those tests are not for metrics- they're just for prematurely weeding out corner cases.