4 ms·

That sounds normal given your career trajectory and it's good to hear that you enjoy your work. In order to keep your edge and facilitate the use of your archi

That sounds normal given your career trajectory and it's good to hear that you enjoy your work. In order to keep your edge and facilitate the use of your architectural designs I would recommend implementing skeleton, or proof-of-concept, implementations of your designs that your colleagues can use as examples or templates. I wouldn't worry about being fucked on the LeetCode stuff as your 10 years of employment should move you past that bar. Furthermore, I've coded for over 15 years, worked with people that have over 30 years experience, and all of us would have a rough time of it since we've been busy doing other stuff.

maxdoop 5y ago
This is reassuring. I have a buddy that is a pure coder -- individual contributor type of guy. He will often share his latest clever idea in some code snippet, and while I understand it abstractly, I feel lost when I focus on the finer details. I definitely couldn't sit alone in a room and come up with it myself at this point. At the same time, _he_ is a bit lost when I talk the more broad architectural stuff I work on. Thus, I often go back-and-forth on what I should be focused on, especially as it relates to future opportunities. It's helpful to hear I'm not necessarily abnormal or falling off (as it sometimes can feel).
wikibob 5y ago
Strong disagree on the leetcode bar. Any FAANG will still give you algorithm questions in interviews, even at a Staff level.
- master_yoda_1 5y ago
  There are many type of Staff eng , some of them are solver who solve toughest problem in the team. They need very high standard of coding knowledge.
- lfowles 5y ago
  This is my experience -- your foot gets in the door to get an interview easier though.
- taylodl 5y ago
  Two things: 1. Why do you assume people want to work for FAANG? Those are the last places I want to work. I know many people like me. 2. Algorithm questions - you can't forget your algorithms. At this point that would be like forgetting how to ride a bike. There's stuff I learned decades ago in unrelated fields that I work in that I still remember. Even so, it's not lost on anyone that extensive knowledge of algorithms is rarely important in actual day-to-day development work, and the things that are important interviewers rarely dig into. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - bradlys 5y ago
    Knowing algorithms and being able to do LC aren’t the same. It’s one thing to be knowledgeable about how a car works. It’s another to be a trained mechanic who regularly works on a specific brand of car. LC indexes heavily on the latter. You need to be very much up to speed. Solving 2x mediums in <40 minutes is the basic standard (1 hard in 35). You’re unlikely to be that proficient without a ton of practice and studying. They’re looking for someone who can swap the engine in a few hours - not the guy who can figure it out over a couple weekends. I remember plenty of algorithms and the general ways they work but coding them up on the fly without any errors is another thing when out of practice.
    - taylodl 5y ago
      Like I said, like riding a bike. If you actually know it then you won't forget it. Sure, you're going to need to practice to get your speed up - but so does everybody.
      - bradlys 5y ago
        It’s not really like riding a bike though. There’s so much more effort involved. It’s more like training for a race. Yes, you can pedal and get there eventually but compared to your competition - you’re coming in last.
        taylodl 5y ago
BoorishBears 5y ago
> I wouldn't worry about being fucked on the LeetCode stuff as your 10 years of employment should move you past that bar. As someone in that position, it unfortunately has not. That being said, I refuse to spend any of my time on preparing on LC. I recently lost out on an opportunity at Facebook over this. Someone from a specific team had reached out to me, was extremely excited about my background, assured me LC would not be a large signal due to my experience and that other rounds would matter more and referred me. Because of their strong interest I was given a do-over after a sub-par first LC. After the second LC I was told they wouldn't move forward (so much for other rounds mattering more?) - To me it's a sad comedy. I'm sure a fresh grad who couldn't code a "Hello World" without autocomplete would have outperformed me on LC by virtue of remembering algos I have long forgotten and having the time to "chew and pour" as we say in my country of origin. Now a team loses out on someone who was (by their estimation, not mine) a great match because of some shibboleth that would have never come up in day to day work? Obviously I went in willing to potentially accept an offer, but to be honest... had I continued after the second LC interview my plan was to turn them down and cite LC as the reason. Someone who didn't make it complaining is just sour grapes, but maybe having someone they deemed "worthy" turn down their money to point out how ass-backward the practice is would have meant something.
- aristofun 5y ago
  All fair, faang is not really interested in developers like you. They want newcomers who can chew everything. Their interview process perfectly fits.
- itronitron 5y ago
  Yeah, it's definitely a sad comedy, especially when the LC questions they are testing on are usually the exact things that developers should be using an established library for instead of implementing themselves. I also think that all hiring depends on internal politics, to which the candidate usually has no insight. Luckily my wife and I have learned to laugh about it.
- lfowles 5y ago
  Don't worry, worse interviewing practices definitely exist :) I've been asked to dictate code over the phone "as you would type it out" for a very well respected place. I've grumbled pretty hard about leetcode dependence in interviewing, but it does seem to form a common language for interviewers to gauge problem solving skills against (similar to how people rail against design patterns -- they're going to exist whether or not we have a vocabulary for them).
ldjkfkdsjnv 5y ago
This is bad information, leetcode matters more than anything, at all levels.

maxdoop 5y ago

This is reassuring. I have a buddy that is a pure coder -- individual contributor type of guy. He will often share his latest clever idea in some code snippet, and while I understand it abstractly, I feel lost when I focus on the finer details. I definitely couldn't sit alone in a room and come up with it myself at this point. At the same time, _he_ is a bit lost when I talk the more broad architectural stuff I work on. Thus, I often go back-and-forth on what I should be focused on, especially as it relates to future opportunities. It's helpful to hear I'm not necessarily abnormal or falling off (as it sometimes can feel).

wikibob 5y ago

Strong disagree on the leetcode bar. Any FAANG will still give you algorithm questions in interviews, even at a Staff level.

master_yoda_1 5y ago
There are many type of Staff eng , some of them are solver who solve toughest problem in the team. They need very high standard of coding knowledge.
lfowles 5y ago
This is my experience -- your foot gets in the door to get an interview easier though.
taylodl 5y ago
Two things: 1. Why do you assume people want to work for FAANG? Those are the last places I want to work. I know many people like me. 2. Algorithm questions - you can't forget your algorithms. At this point that would be like forgetting how to ride a bike. There's stuff I learned decades ago in unrelated fields that I work in that I still remember. Even so, it's not lost on anyone that extensive knowledge of algorithms is rarely important in actual day-to-day development work, and the things that are important interviewers rarely dig into. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- bradlys 5y ago
  Knowing algorithms and being able to do LC aren’t the same. It’s one thing to be knowledgeable about how a car works. It’s another to be a trained mechanic who regularly works on a specific brand of car. LC indexes heavily on the latter. You need to be very much up to speed. Solving 2x mediums in <40 minutes is the basic standard (1 hard in 35). You’re unlikely to be that proficient without a ton of practice and studying. They’re looking for someone who can swap the engine in a few hours - not the guy who can figure it out over a couple weekends. I remember plenty of algorithms and the general ways they work but coding them up on the fly without any errors is another thing when out of practice.
  - taylodl 5y ago
    Like I said, like riding a bike. If you actually know it then you won't forget it. Sure, you're going to need to practice to get your speed up - but so does everybody.
    - bradlys 5y ago
      It’s not really like riding a bike though. There’s so much more effort involved. It’s more like training for a race. Yes, you can pedal and get there eventually but compared to your competition - you’re coming in last.
      - taylodl 5y ago

BoorishBears 5y ago

> I wouldn't worry about being fucked on the LeetCode stuff as your 10 years of employment should move you past that bar. As someone in that position, it unfortunately has not. That being said, I refuse to spend any of my time on preparing on LC. I recently lost out on an opportunity at Facebook over this. Someone from a specific team had reached out to me, was extremely excited about my background, assured me LC would not be a large signal due to my experience and that other rounds would matter more and referred me. Because of their strong interest I was given a do-over after a sub-par first LC. After the second LC I was told they wouldn't move forward (so much for other rounds mattering more?) - To me it's a sad comedy. I'm sure a fresh grad who couldn't code a "Hello World" without autocomplete would have outperformed me on LC by virtue of remembering algos I have long forgotten and having the time to "chew and pour" as we say in my country of origin. Now a team loses out on someone who was (by their estimation, not mine) a great match because of some shibboleth that would have never come up in day to day work? Obviously I went in willing to potentially accept an offer, but to be honest... had I continued after the second LC interview my plan was to turn them down and cite LC as the reason. Someone who didn't make it complaining is just sour grapes, but maybe having someone they deemed "worthy" turn down their money to point out how ass-backward the practice is would have meant something.

aristofun 5y ago
All fair, faang is not really interested in developers like you. They want newcomers who can chew everything. Their interview process perfectly fits.
itronitron 5y ago
Yeah, it's definitely a sad comedy, especially when the LC questions they are testing on are usually the exact things that developers should be using an established library for instead of implementing themselves. I also think that all hiring depends on internal politics, to which the candidate usually has no insight. Luckily my wife and I have learned to laugh about it.
lfowles 5y ago
Don't worry, worse interviewing practices definitely exist :) I've been asked to dictate code over the phone "as you would type it out" for a very well respected place. I've grumbled pretty hard about leetcode dependence in interviewing, but it does seem to form a common language for interviewers to gauge problem solving skills against (similar to how people rail against design patterns -- they're going to exist whether or not we have a vocabulary for them).

ldjkfkdsjnv 5y ago

This is bad information, leetcode matters more than anything, at all levels.