3 ms·

> I've never understood the heavy emphasis on in-interview coding or brain teasers. Here's why https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ http

> I've never understood the heavy emphasis on in-interview coding or brain teasers. Here's why https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/

mikepurvis 5y ago
I guess, but I would hope that kind of thing could/would be smoked out in the course of a discussion following these kinds of prompts: - Tell us about the approach you took with the take-home coding challenge. Why did you break up the functionality in the way that you did (modules/classes/functions)? What kinds of constraints or requirements would cause you to make a different call here? - Tell us a debugging war story. What was the bug, how did you discover it and come to eventually understand the root cause? Any challenges with reproduction? What steps were taken to prevent it from happening again? - Pick a feature of XXX programming language and explain how it contrasts with approaches taken in other languages. What do you like about it? It is more productive, efficient, safer, more explicit? What are the tradeoffs and how do you balance these? What kinds of projects would have you prioritizing using a language/ecosystem with this capability? Someone incapable of writing a fizzbuzz program is not going to be able to bluff their way through an interview like this. Obviously you need to be committed to listening and exploring the space with the other person as opposed to flexing and looking for the "right" answer, but that's just part of the discipline of being a good interviewer and not a jackass.
- WkndTriathlete 5y ago
  I have found that a 30-minute discussion on a random variety of technical topics (including questions such as those posted above) is sufficient to determine whether someone has required technical expertise. Coding exercises entirely miss the point, because writing code is the easy part. The hard part about good software engineering is being able to rapidly acquire problem domain expertise and knowing which engineering design choices enable rapid, scalable, and maintainable development to solve the problem. That's why companies using code exercises to screen candidates are generally not worth the interviewee's time to work for - it indicates that the interviewers don't understand the problem domain, either, and (by extension) that company is mired in mediocrity. I've had code exercise interviews. I'm quite happy that I have never had to work for one of the companies that used them. I have never given a code exercise interview, and I've been quite pleased with the candidates that have responded and worked with me.

mikepurvis 5y ago

I guess, but I would hope that kind of thing could/would be smoked out in the course of a discussion following these kinds of prompts: - Tell us about the approach you took with the take-home coding challenge. Why did you break up the functionality in the way that you did (modules/classes/functions)? What kinds of constraints or requirements would cause you to make a different call here? - Tell us a debugging war story. What was the bug, how did you discover it and come to eventually understand the root cause? Any challenges with reproduction? What steps were taken to prevent it from happening again? - Pick a feature of XXX programming language and explain how it contrasts with approaches taken in other languages. What do you like about it? It is more productive, efficient, safer, more explicit? What are the tradeoffs and how do you balance these? What kinds of projects would have you prioritizing using a language/ecosystem with this capability? Someone incapable of writing a fizzbuzz program is not going to be able to bluff their way through an interview like this. Obviously you need to be committed to listening and exploring the space with the other person as opposed to flexing and looking for the "right" answer, but that's just part of the discipline of being a good interviewer and not a jackass.

WkndTriathlete 5y ago
I have found that a 30-minute discussion on a random variety of technical topics (including questions such as those posted above) is sufficient to determine whether someone has required technical expertise. Coding exercises entirely miss the point, because writing code is the easy part. The hard part about good software engineering is being able to rapidly acquire problem domain expertise and knowing which engineering design choices enable rapid, scalable, and maintainable development to solve the problem. That's why companies using code exercises to screen candidates are generally not worth the interviewee's time to work for - it indicates that the interviewers don't understand the problem domain, either, and (by extension) that company is mired in mediocrity. I've had code exercise interviews. I'm quite happy that I have never had to work for one of the companies that used them. I have never given a code exercise interview, and I've been quite pleased with the candidates that have responded and worked with me.