LC is a bad measurement for your abilities as a software engineer since it only measures a very small subset of what software engineering is, heck, of what prog

LC is a bad measurement for your abilities as a software engineer since it only measures a very small subset of what software engineering is, heck, of what programming is! You spend a lot more time in plumbing and debugging than implementing algorithms, and if you ever have to use one, it’s very likely that your manager would prefer you use a well tested library and move on to the next story in Jira. Saying that LC is “actual programming” is a bit narrow. Actual programming takes into consideration architecture, code maintainability and readability, judgement calls between using external libraries vs building in-house, proper use of tools (IDE, cli tools, etc…) and a bunch of other stuff. I’ve suffered working with code written by individual that are good at LC but wrote such unreadable spaghetti code that I wonder if they thought they had a 40m timer like in LC that they couldn’t bother writing a complete word as a variable name. So no, don’t measure your worth by the fang sieve of LC and the likes of it. I actively avoid companies that use those as their measure to assess technical abilities because it makes me question what type of coworkers would I have.