3 ms·
Hiring a bad developer can be a costly mistake. In addition to the costs for the developer, there are often other costs and productivity lost. Basically a good
by jasoneckert 6y ago
Hiring a bad developer can be a costly mistake. In addition to the costs for the developer, there are often other costs and productivity lost.
Basically a good coder is not the same as a good developer. Coding is relatively easy - if you can visualize and solve problems using code, then you're a good developer. It's the thought process that makes you a good developer.
Coding challenges are often a good way to test this thought process. I often require candidates walk me through their code and explain their reasoning behind everything to see if they'll be valuable on my team.
However, coding challenges are just one way to ascertain someone's thought process. Watching people work on code during a game jam or hackathon often gives me an idea of their thought process, as does the advice of other people I trust who vouch for them.
So, no - coding challenges aren't always necessary. But unless there is a better way for me to learn whether you're going to be a good developer, then I'll give you one.
- capkutay 6y agoThe author's suggestion of a 'trial period' of employment might also be one of the impractical, costly, infeasible ideas I've ever seen proposed. So the candidate doesn't want to spend 1 hour on a coding interview because 'they don't have time.' The solution? Spend a month on-boarding the candidate to your company (taking time from multiple team members), give them an implicitly high stakes work project while they get used to the new working environment and production codebase. Meanwhile there's tension/friction because the company wants to quickly validate the temporary hire. If it's successful, okay proceed as an employee. If it's unsuccessful, it's a huge waste of everyone's time, a costly experiment for the company/team, and likely a very unpleasant 6 week long working engagement. Then the candidate will have to explain why they only lasted at their previous employer for 6 weeks in their next set of interviews.
- dvtrn 6y agoThe author's suggestion of a 'trial period' of employment might also be one of the impractical, costly, infeasible ideas I've ever seen proposed. Then the world of 1099 IT “technician staffing” and ‘contingency technical recruiting’ will absolutely horrify you because an entire cottage industry unto itself is built around this employment model. It’s especially popular in call-center workforce management.