4 ms·
Quote: Your algorithm will likely be an O(n^2) (n-squared) algorithm because you’ll be iterating over the data in an exponential way End of quote. Ok, so t
by choeger 6y ago
Quote:
Your algorithm will likely be an O(n^2) (n-squared) algorithm because you’ll be iterating over the data in an exponential way
End of quote.
Ok, so the technical interviewer mixes up exponential and polynomial run-time in a blog post about interviewing. Can you spot what's wrong with interviewing in SE?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dvt 6y agoGod, this is just painfully embarrassing. It's a real shame we -- as an industry -- haven't pushed back against these kinds of practices (maybe the pay is just too good). At this point, technical interviews are just a meme.
- ende 6y agoOrganize. Lobby our legislators. Put that money to use.
- neonate 6y agoBecause someone conflated exponential and quadratic?
- michaelt 6y agoI've seen people successfully get interview formats changed - even in companies with a thousand developers. So if you're thinking of advocating for changes, a single enthusiastic person can often get it done! Of course, you can only ever change interview processes you've already passed and you'll never have to pass again - so many people focus their attentions elsewhere.
- mping 6y agoThat doesn't change the general idea of the post in any kind, although I generally agree that SE interviews are kinda borked. Still, most companies that interview somewhat thrive despite having a far from optimal process.
- donedealomg 6y agoAlso when doing an interview and catch heavy mistakes from your future boss, I sometimes just let it go and don't even go into an argument. Thinking, maybe they act stupid on purpose to see how I react to it.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoI've no problem with it. I understand he means superlinear, and I have both a formal and intuitive understanding of what he's getting at. Getting hung up on such minutiae is unimportant, it's like someone who will correct your "who" to "whom" - it misses the point. The bigger problem is those who don't recognise the implications at all, or know but don't care. I've worked with both. Actually I did exactly this when being interviewed, talked about exponential. The interviewer obviously got annoyed and moved on but didn't do the right thing which was to ask me to be precise. Had he, I could have said I meant quadratic. He didn't so we both lost an opportunity.
- arethuza 6y agoAn interviewee making that kind of mistake is unfortunate an interviewer doubly so. But putting this kind of thing into an article that has presumably been reviewed by multiple people does, in my view, a fair bit to undermine their credibility.