3 ms·

For example, I have interviewed candidates with professional experience who weren't able to correctly write a function to find the minimum element in the array.

For example, I have interviewed candidates with professional experience who weren't able to correctly write a function to find the minimum element in the array. This is what I meant by "basic things".

jjav 4y ago
I believe it can seem that way in the interview context. But taking a step back and thinking about it: is it really possible for someone to have been writing production code for years and not know how to iterate through an array looking for smallest element? I firmly assert that no, it is not possible. This shouldn't be controversial. Seriously, it's not possible to not know how to do that for anyone who has written more than a few days of casual code, let alone years of professional production code. And yet the interview makes it seem like they can't? Which I'll also believe. So what's going on? What's going on is that the interviews are measuring something entirely different, not programming skill. Which means the interview technique is wrong because it isn't measuring the skills, it's just measuring tolerance to the extreme stress of the interview. Which many conflict-avoiding introvert programmer types are very bad at, even though they are excellent at programming.
- returningfory2 4y ago
  That seems to be a very theoretical approach to me. But in the end I have literally sat in an interview with someone who has professional experience and who couldn't write a function to find the smallest element in an array without significant help from me. That's just a fact. I'm not sure what the theoretical basis of that was. I'm not sure how the person could have experience and not be able to complete such a simple thing. All I know is that it literally happened. Trying to argue from some theoretical principles that it couldn't have happened doesn't make much sense to me given that, like, it actually happened.
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Trying to argue from some theoretical principles that it couldn't have happened doesn't make much sense to me given that, like, it actually happened. I believe it actually happened, in the context of the extreme stress of an interview. Do you think that same person back at their desk at work, without anyone breathing down their neck, can't write a loop? But you are presumably trying to hire people to sit at their desk and write code, so it is the latter skill that is important, not the former. The only case where programming under extreme stress might be a relevant quality is in a workspace where you routinely have a VP screaming at you to fix a customer bug right now or you're fired. And there's no reason to tolerate such a toxic workplace, so there's no reason to use such a terrible interview strategy.

jjav 4y ago

I believe it can seem that way in the interview context. But taking a step back and thinking about it: is it really possible for someone to have been writing production code for years and not know how to iterate through an array looking for smallest element? I firmly assert that no, it is not possible. This shouldn't be controversial. Seriously, it's not possible to not know how to do that for anyone who has written more than a few days of casual code, let alone years of professional production code. And yet the interview makes it seem like they can't? Which I'll also believe. So what's going on? What's going on is that the interviews are measuring something entirely different, not programming skill. Which means the interview technique is wrong because it isn't measuring the skills, it's just measuring tolerance to the extreme stress of the interview. Which many conflict-avoiding introvert programmer types are very bad at, even though they are excellent at programming.

returningfory2 4y ago
That seems to be a very theoretical approach to me. But in the end I have literally sat in an interview with someone who has professional experience and who couldn't write a function to find the smallest element in an array without significant help from me. That's just a fact. I'm not sure what the theoretical basis of that was. I'm not sure how the person could have experience and not be able to complete such a simple thing. All I know is that it literally happened. Trying to argue from some theoretical principles that it couldn't have happened doesn't make much sense to me given that, like, it actually happened.
- jjav 4y ago
  > Trying to argue from some theoretical principles that it couldn't have happened doesn't make much sense to me given that, like, it actually happened. I believe it actually happened, in the context of the extreme stress of an interview. Do you think that same person back at their desk at work, without anyone breathing down their neck, can't write a loop? But you are presumably trying to hire people to sit at their desk and write code, so it is the latter skill that is important, not the former. The only case where programming under extreme stress might be a relevant quality is in a workspace where you routinely have a VP screaming at you to fix a customer bug right now or you're fired. And there's no reason to tolerate such a toxic workplace, so there's no reason to use such a terrible interview strategy.