4 ms·

>Just looking at this guy's repo and his writing style -- you'd be foolish to waste his time or yours on leetcode-style hazing Perhaps it's just me, but I took

by treis 5y ago

>Just looking at this guy's repo and his writing style -- you'd be foolish to waste his time or yours on leetcode-style hazing Perhaps it's just me, but I took a look and I'm not convinced. Nothing jumps out to me as overwhelming proof of programming ability.

bogwog 5y ago
Can you explain why? To me it's obvious that this guy knows how to code, and he's probably better at it than most of the engineers I've met.
- treis 5y ago
  Hard to explain the absence of something other than it's just not there. The list of projects/accomplishments are fine but the reality is that people lie about stuff like that. I poked around their recent GitHub commits but it was mostly bug reports. Nothing really that points to being obviously great at coding. I see that on paper they're a great candidate, but the reason that companies do these tests is that often the candidate doesn't measure up to the resume
vanusa 5y ago
Nothing jumps out to me as overwhelming proof of programming ability. Are you suggesting that leetcode tests provide "overwhelming proof of programming ability"?
- sangnoir 5y ago
  Not gp, but obviously yes. I'm yet to meet someone who can pass a leetcode-style interview with sober and conscious interviewers, but can't code. Have you? Leetcode and coding ability is an A -> B but B -/-> A situation: failing leetcode doesn't mean you can't program, but the reverse is absolutely the case. Leetcode can't filter out other potential issues that may impact success (e.g. poor anger management, or poor judgement).
  - vanusa 5y ago
    I'm yet to meet someone who can pass LC, but can't code. I should perhaps be clear that by "overwhelming proof of ability" I meant "the ability to program well". Which by definition does intersect with one's capacity for judgement, on a certain level. (Though is largely orthogonal to other behavioral issues, I find). I see LC as providing proof of, at best, minimal ability. And I've seen plenty of people who can run circles around LC-style tasks, but when it gets to the bigger picture -- you know, writing good, maintainable software -- somehow, it just never comes together right. We agree that obtaining proof of minimal ability is important. I just think that proof can be obtained in other, far less mutually degrading (and error-prone) ways.

by treis 5y ago

bogwog 5y ago

Can you explain why? To me it's obvious that this guy knows how to code, and he's probably better at it than most of the engineers I've met.

treis 5y ago
Hard to explain the absence of something other than it's just not there. The list of projects/accomplishments are fine but the reality is that people lie about stuff like that. I poked around their recent GitHub commits but it was mostly bug reports. Nothing really that points to being obviously great at coding. I see that on paper they're a great candidate, but the reason that companies do these tests is that often the candidate doesn't measure up to the resume

vanusa 5y ago

Nothing jumps out to me as overwhelming proof of programming ability. Are you suggesting that leetcode tests provide "overwhelming proof of programming ability"?

sangnoir 5y ago
Not gp, but obviously yes. I'm yet to meet someone who can pass a leetcode-style interview with sober and conscious interviewers, but can't code. Have you? Leetcode and coding ability is an A -> B but B -/-> A situation: failing leetcode doesn't mean you can't program, but the reverse is absolutely the case. Leetcode can't filter out other potential issues that may impact success (e.g. poor anger management, or poor judgement).
- vanusa 5y ago
  I'm yet to meet someone who can pass LC, but can't code. I should perhaps be clear that by "overwhelming proof of ability" I meant "the ability to program well". Which by definition does intersect with one's capacity for judgement, on a certain level. (Though is largely orthogonal to other behavioral issues, I find). I see LC as providing proof of, at best, minimal ability. And I've seen plenty of people who can run circles around LC-style tasks, but when it gets to the bigger picture -- you know, writing good, maintainable software -- somehow, it just never comes together right. We agree that obtaining proof of minimal ability is important. I just think that proof can be obtained in other, far less mutually degrading (and error-prone) ways.