3 ms·

>Your garden variety web developer will not be building algorithms from scratch virtually ever. Web developers like this are those that introduce O(n^2) comple

>Your garden variety web developer will not be building algorithms from scratch virtually ever. Web developers like this are those that introduce O(n^2) complexity in places where it could be done in O(n), which makes for poor application performance. Sure, they aren't writing algorithms per se, but their lack of knowledge of algorithms still tends to create problems not-that-rarely (assuming the product is above certain size and complexity). Also, what constitutes a "basic algorithm" is pretty vague. I've seen quite a few people interviewing who couldn't solve fizzbuzz. Until that moment, every time i heard about people not being able to solve fizzbuzz, I though it was an exaggerated joke to describe someone incompetent , but nope, plenty of people legitimately don't know how to solve it. I don't think fizzbuzz could even be legitimately called an "algorithmic" problem, but no matter what, if you cannot just do a trivial for loop and a couple of if-elif-else checks, you are not qualified, algorithms or not. And there is no quicker way to filter those people out at the initial stage than a simple whiteboard problem.

vikingerik 5y ago
Remember the selection bias in observing who fails fizzbuzz. Those are the people who are repeatedly interviewing because they can't fizzbuzz. Those who can will get a job and remove themselves from the interview pool. Fizzbuzz-failers are a much greater share of interview candidates than of all programmers.
- filoleg 5y ago
  Agreed, this is an important bias to remember. I was just impressed that those people actually existed at all in the numbers beyond just a rounding error, because I used to think it was just an exaggeration, kind of like saying "he can barely figure out 2+2". Reality ended up being much more grim. I wouldn't be as baffled by tons of people failing fizzbuzz, if it wasn't for most of them having actually pretty legit-looking resumes though. Like, you would have a great programmer who aces all the interviews, but their resume is just decent. While people failing to solve fizzbuzz might have pretty impressive-looking resumes at times. Which is why, unfortunately, leetcode feels like a necessary evil. Because we live in a world where even the most incompetent people might have enough years of experiences of skating-by to craft a top-tier looking resume. Way too easy to bs your way in if you rely mainly on resumes, and firing people later (as opposed to not hiring them in the first place) is just too expensive in every single aspect (from money to opportunity cost to team morale).

vikingerik 5y ago

Remember the selection bias in observing who fails fizzbuzz. Those are the people who are repeatedly interviewing because they can't fizzbuzz. Those who can will get a job and remove themselves from the interview pool. Fizzbuzz-failers are a much greater share of interview candidates than of all programmers.

filoleg 5y ago
Agreed, this is an important bias to remember. I was just impressed that those people actually existed at all in the numbers beyond just a rounding error, because I used to think it was just an exaggeration, kind of like saying "he can barely figure out 2+2". Reality ended up being much more grim. I wouldn't be as baffled by tons of people failing fizzbuzz, if it wasn't for most of them having actually pretty legit-looking resumes though. Like, you would have a great programmer who aces all the interviews, but their resume is just decent. While people failing to solve fizzbuzz might have pretty impressive-looking resumes at times. Which is why, unfortunately, leetcode feels like a necessary evil. Because we live in a world where even the most incompetent people might have enough years of experiences of skating-by to craft a top-tier looking resume. Way too easy to bs your way in if you rely mainly on resumes, and firing people later (as opposed to not hiring them in the first place) is just too expensive in every single aspect (from money to opportunity cost to team morale).