3 ms·

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

by 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.

by jusssi 5y ago

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.