3 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding. This is not a test to see if you know what Pascals triangle is....it's a simple test of your ability to take a simple algorithm

by YmMot 15y ago

I think you're misunderstanding. This is not a test to see if you know what Pascals triangle is....it's a simple test of your ability to take a simple algorithm that has been explained to you and translate it into code. This is the essence of programming. Pascal's triangle is simple a triangle which starts at 1 and where each number in the next row is the sum of the two numbers above it, with 0 being assumed for numbers on the edge. A program to produce one is nothing more than a couple for-loops, printf, and some basic logic.

king_magic 15y ago
Yes, in retrospect, I think I was misunderstanding. OP clarified his comment, and in that case, I think it makes sense. I agree - that is the essence of programming, and if you truly cannot do that, you have no business being a programmer. However, there is more to software engineering than being able to translate algorithms into code, and I'm not so sure that a single litmus test should make the difference between hiring/not hiring a candidate.
- pjscott 15y ago
  There's more to playing baseball than running, but someone who can't run probably won't make a very good baseball player. Sure, there's going to be some error rate, but that's inevitable.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Algorithms are one thing, but I don't know of a single business that is dependent on Pascal's Triangle. That is, is it realistic to use PT?
    - aplusbi 15y ago
      You're focusing too much on the wrong thing. The point is being able to take a (simple) problem and convert it to code. The problem doesn't matter, the method does.
  - jkmcf 15y ago
    Sadly, for baseball, this is far from the case :(
  - king_magic 15y ago
    Yes, true, but curlers or rock climbers don't need to run the same way baseball players do. All I'm saying is that there needs to be a multi-faceted look at a candidate. Some candidates are going to be so obviously poor that they do merit instant rejection. However, in my experience, that is the exception rather than the rule.
    - SatvikBeri 15y ago
      Out of curiosity: where do you come in, in the interviewing process? I don't have direct experience, but I frequently hear that very trivial programming questions weed out more than 50% of applicants to programming jobs.
      - king_magic 15y ago
        I am in the middle; our candidates are screened by HR (a process I'm not super fond of), then they come to me for various levels of tech/cultural fit interviewing. Then my comments are forwarded for final approval. Generally, if I say "hire", they hire. If I say "run", they run. And yes - trivial programming questions do weed out a fair number of candidates. However... it's tricky. A trivial programming question can look different to many different people, especially if they have varying skill levels and depending on their level of comfort in interviews. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. If one question stumps them, I'll try to gauge their understanding with another similar (but different enough) question. If that doesn't work... sometimes I'll give them another shot, but usually I'll start winding the interview down.

by YmMot 15y ago

king_magic 15y ago

Yes, in retrospect, I think I was misunderstanding. OP clarified his comment, and in that case, I think it makes sense. I agree - that is the essence of programming, and if you truly cannot do that, you have no business being a programmer. However, there is more to software engineering than being able to translate algorithms into code, and I'm not so sure that a single litmus test should make the difference between hiring/not hiring a candidate.

pjscott 15y ago
There's more to playing baseball than running, but someone who can't run probably won't make a very good baseball player. Sure, there's going to be some error rate, but that's inevitable.
- rhizome 15y ago
  Algorithms are one thing, but I don't know of a single business that is dependent on Pascal's Triangle. That is, is it realistic to use PT?
  - aplusbi 15y ago
    You're focusing too much on the wrong thing. The point is being able to take a (simple) problem and convert it to code. The problem doesn't matter, the method does.
- jkmcf 15y ago
  Sadly, for baseball, this is far from the case :(
- king_magic 15y ago
  Yes, true, but curlers or rock climbers don't need to run the same way baseball players do. All I'm saying is that there needs to be a multi-faceted look at a candidate. Some candidates are going to be so obviously poor that they do merit instant rejection. However, in my experience, that is the exception rather than the rule.
  - SatvikBeri 15y ago
    Out of curiosity: where do you come in, in the interviewing process? I don't have direct experience, but I frequently hear that very trivial programming questions weed out more than 50% of applicants to programming jobs.
    - king_magic 15y ago
      I am in the middle; our candidates are screened by HR (a process I'm not super fond of), then they come to me for various levels of tech/cultural fit interviewing. Then my comments are forwarded for final approval. Generally, if I say "hire", they hire. If I say "run", they run. And yes - trivial programming questions do weed out a fair number of candidates. However... it's tricky. A trivial programming question can look different to many different people, especially if they have varying skill levels and depending on their level of comfort in interviews. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. If one question stumps them, I'll try to gauge their understanding with another similar (but different enough) question. If that doesn't work... sometimes I'll give them another shot, but usually I'll start winding the interview down.