3 ms·

That’s the problem; I don’t want or need excellent developers, I need a known quality of developer. I’m so sick of giving basic FizzBuzz and watching people wi

That’s the problem; I don’t want or need excellent developers, I need a known quality of developer. I’m so sick of giving basic FizzBuzz and watching people with “10 years” of experience fail. I’m sure the competent developers want to stop wasting their time taking FizzBuzz! We’re looking for a floor, not a ceiling.

voz_ 5y ago
What do you learn from giving them FizzBuzz and watching them fail?
- vippy 5y ago
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  The obvious; that I should not hire them for a given senior development position. It’s remarkable to me how many people do fail. I get that there’s pressure, but a huge part of being a senior dev is overcoming that to lead.
  - dgb23 5y ago
    Do you literally mean FizzBuzz or is that a stand-in for tricky leetcode puzzles? The latter seems to be a thing that selects for people who like puzzles. I’m in that camp but I don’t think it’s a super important area of interest.
    - TameAntelope 5y ago
      I literally mean FizzBuzz, it’s gobsmacking how these people get as far as they do.
- manigandham 5y ago
  That they're obviously not senior, or even mediocre?
jusssi 5y ago
I am curious. What is the ratio between the failure modes? E.g. * Completely freezing / not coming up with any way to approach the problem / admitting they don't know how to code? * Failing to use the basic tools, i.e. keyboard, text editor, compiler (please don't say you do whiteboarding)? * Failing to produce code that compiles? * Failing to produce an implementation that even approximates correct behavior? * Failing at minor details / edge cases / reading comprehension? * Failing at providing an unit test? * Failing at code quality even if their solution works? * Failing at explaining their solution?
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  For my limited experience, and drawing only on memory of observation, rather than any recorded data, I'd break it down approximately as: * 1/3rd of interviewees freeze up and wouldn't be able to add two numbers together if asked. This is, to me, is mostly indistinguishable from, "have never coded in their life and lied successfully to get this far." * 1/3rd only partially freeze up and produce an incomplete solution and can't talk their way through what they did and why there's a missing piece * 1/3rd are able to get through FizzBuzz but with great frustration (they're usually upset with themselves for struggling so much). None of these failures are acceptable in an engineer with any amount of experience, even though they're not all strictly speaking about ability to work with data structures and algorithms in a vacuum. The thing is, software development is a team sport, and you have to come ready to play. If the goal was to find the person with the absolute best ability to take a set of static requirements and turn them into functioning code by themselves, this would not be a fantastic test. That is not, however, how nearly any software job actually works.

voz_ 5y ago

What do you learn from giving them FizzBuzz and watching them fail?

vippy 5y ago
TameAntelope 5y ago
The obvious; that I should not hire them for a given senior development position. It’s remarkable to me how many people do fail. I get that there’s pressure, but a huge part of being a senior dev is overcoming that to lead.
- dgb23 5y ago
  Do you literally mean FizzBuzz or is that a stand-in for tricky leetcode puzzles? The latter seems to be a thing that selects for people who like puzzles. I’m in that camp but I don’t think it’s a super important area of interest.
  - TameAntelope 5y ago
    I literally mean FizzBuzz, it’s gobsmacking how these people get as far as they do.
manigandham 5y ago
That they're obviously not senior, or even mediocre?

jusssi 5y ago

I am curious. What is the ratio between the failure modes? E.g. * Completely freezing / not coming up with any way to approach the problem / admitting they don't know how to code? * Failing to use the basic tools, i.e. keyboard, text editor, compiler (please don't say you do whiteboarding)? * Failing to produce code that compiles? * Failing to produce an implementation that even approximates correct behavior? * Failing at minor details / edge cases / reading comprehension? * Failing at providing an unit test? * Failing at code quality even if their solution works? * Failing at explaining their solution?

TameAntelope 5y ago
For my limited experience, and drawing only on memory of observation, rather than any recorded data, I'd break it down approximately as: * 1/3rd of interviewees freeze up and wouldn't be able to add two numbers together if asked. This is, to me, is mostly indistinguishable from, "have never coded in their life and lied successfully to get this far." * 1/3rd only partially freeze up and produce an incomplete solution and can't talk their way through what they did and why there's a missing piece * 1/3rd are able to get through FizzBuzz but with great frustration (they're usually upset with themselves for struggling so much). None of these failures are acceptable in an engineer with any amount of experience, even though they're not all strictly speaking about ability to work with data structures and algorithms in a vacuum. The thing is, software development is a team sport, and you have to come ready to play. If the goal was to find the person with the absolute best ability to take a set of static requirements and turn them into functioning code by themselves, this would not be a fantastic test. That is not, however, how nearly any software job actually works.