4 ms·

Sorry but this is completely wrong. Not needing to code Floyd–Warshall on the job is not equal to "high-level apis and glue code". You can totally recognize t

by YZF 5y ago

Sorry but this is completely wrong. Not needing to code Floyd–Warshall on the job is not equal to "high-level apis and glue code". You can totally recognize the opportunity for the correct data structure or algorithm despite not having them all in your head all the time. That's exactly what a good software engineer does. But if you think you can code up any algorithm in any domain on the fly I'm sure I can find some good interview question for you. I mean there's only like 5 algorithms in the world, right? I'm sure you have at least all the volumes of Knuth memorized... And if not, you must just be writing glue code ;)

tubby12345 5y ago
- YZF 5y ago
  I can assure you, 100% without a doubt, that this is where the vast majority of developers are. Including people working on the most cutting edge software. The only reason the people you interview(?) can regurgitate this is because they just re-read their course book yesterday and they expect algorithmic problems. Or sure, some of us do competitive coding and such where these things do show up. There's absolutely no need to memorize this. But if you do more power to you. EDIT: I have made it through those interviews. That's not really the point. The way you make it through is by preparing, just like you'd prepare for the test in school. Doesn't show anything.
  - tubby12345 5y ago
    >I can assure you, 100% without a doubt, that this is where the vast majority of developers are. cool? then that majority doesn't generate the same value as those that do and so they shouldn't get paid as such? i already asserted that? >Including people working on the most cutting edge software. ctrl+f to doubt that you know what people working on cutting edge software do. i, on the other hand, do have some experience on cutting edge compiler tech and it is absolutely what i've described. sorry not sorry. >can regurgitate this is because they just re-read their course book yesterday and they expect algorithmic problems. great. i'm glad. they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding. either way i'll hire them over someone that thinks it's worthless being conversant in the algorithm.
    - tokipin 5y ago
      > they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding. I think it's entirely possible to memorize algorithms superficially. These types of interviews are selecting for exactly the type of person that is good at that rote memorization, and are otherwise selecting for a very narrow type of skillset. It's unreasonable to not expect pathological outcomes with such a rigid system, especially when some people are themselves specialized for the ability to game social systems. Nothing is free. There are always trade offs when choosing one approach over another.
      - tubby12345 5y ago
        tokipin 5y ago
        Well, that's an appeal to authority. It also assumes the companies wouldn't be successful with a different hiring approach. In reality the issue is way too complicated to really break down. These companies operate at a large scale and went through rapid growth spurts, and what they believed was a great way to hire was also an implicit tradeoff they were making for the sake of growth. I'm sure the companies themselves understand that much, and understand a variety of the tradeoffs involved with the way they hire. What they might not understand is that they are at the exploitation stage of their lifespans. There's an entropy-like process as a company matures and cycles through its workforce which leads it to becoming highly specialized. My bet is these companies don't understand the various ways in which they're limited, and therefore the ways in which they're limited in filtering candidates. And even if they did, they couldn't really hire any other way now even if they wanted to because they don't have the internal diversity for it, that possibility has long since closed on them.
        tubby12345 5y ago
- lovich 5y ago
  > i don't think you understand just how out of touch this is because not being able to implement floyd-warshall, which is literally 3 for loops, and still remaining employed as a software dev, is absolutely 100% without a doubt "i'm a code monkey" territory. Just so I understand where you’re coming from, are you not ok with your business collapsing due to lack of workers or are you a manager at Amazon, Team Bondi of LA Noir fame, or in the general retail industry?
  - tubby12345 5y ago
- mylons 5y ago
  you’re the kind of nerd sniper that gets off on this kind of interview style. it’s a well established phenomenon that LC style interviews do little than to fan the flames of the ego for the interviewer.
  - random314 5y ago
    > it’s a well established phenomenon Well established, where?! In hn discussion boards?!

by YZF 5y ago

tubby12345 5y ago

YZF 5y ago
I can assure you, 100% without a doubt, that this is where the vast majority of developers are. Including people working on the most cutting edge software. The only reason the people you interview(?) can regurgitate this is because they just re-read their course book yesterday and they expect algorithmic problems. Or sure, some of us do competitive coding and such where these things do show up. There's absolutely no need to memorize this. But if you do more power to you. EDIT: I have made it through those interviews. That's not really the point. The way you make it through is by preparing, just like you'd prepare for the test in school. Doesn't show anything.
- tubby12345 5y ago
  >I can assure you, 100% without a doubt, that this is where the vast majority of developers are. cool? then that majority doesn't generate the same value as those that do and so they shouldn't get paid as such? i already asserted that? >Including people working on the most cutting edge software. ctrl+f to doubt that you know what people working on cutting edge software do. i, on the other hand, do have some experience on cutting edge compiler tech and it is absolutely what i've described. sorry not sorry. >can regurgitate this is because they just re-read their course book yesterday and they expect algorithmic problems. great. i'm glad. they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding. either way i'll hire them over someone that thinks it's worthless being conversant in the algorithm.
  - tokipin 5y ago
    > they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding. I think it's entirely possible to memorize algorithms superficially. These types of interviews are selecting for exactly the type of person that is good at that rote memorization, and are otherwise selecting for a very narrow type of skillset. It's unreasonable to not expect pathological outcomes with such a rigid system, especially when some people are themselves specialized for the ability to game social systems. Nothing is free. There are always trade offs when choosing one approach over another.
    - tubby12345 5y ago
      - tokipin 5y ago
        Well, that's an appeal to authority. It also assumes the companies wouldn't be successful with a different hiring approach. In reality the issue is way too complicated to really break down. These companies operate at a large scale and went through rapid growth spurts, and what they believed was a great way to hire was also an implicit tradeoff they were making for the sake of growth. I'm sure the companies themselves understand that much, and understand a variety of the tradeoffs involved with the way they hire. What they might not understand is that they are at the exploitation stage of their lifespans. There's an entropy-like process as a company matures and cycles through its workforce which leads it to becoming highly specialized. My bet is these companies don't understand the various ways in which they're limited, and therefore the ways in which they're limited in filtering candidates. And even if they did, they couldn't really hire any other way now even if they wanted to because they don't have the internal diversity for it, that possibility has long since closed on them.
        tubby12345 5y ago
lovich 5y ago
> i don't think you understand just how out of touch this is because not being able to implement floyd-warshall, which is literally 3 for loops, and still remaining employed as a software dev, is absolutely 100% without a doubt "i'm a code monkey" territory. Just so I understand where you’re coming from, are you not ok with your business collapsing due to lack of workers or are you a manager at Amazon, Team Bondi of LA Noir fame, or in the general retail industry?
- tubby12345 5y ago
mylons 5y ago
you’re the kind of nerd sniper that gets off on this kind of interview style. it’s a well established phenomenon that LC style interviews do little than to fan the flames of the ego for the interviewer.
- random314 5y ago
  > it’s a well established phenomenon Well established, where?! In hn discussion boards?!