5 ms·

If it’s taking over 2 hours to setup the environment, then either their stack is so complex and poorly documented that it should be a red flag to bail out, or y

If it’s taking over 2 hours to setup the environment, then either their stack is so complex and poorly documented that it should be a red flag to bail out, or you grossly unqualified. Either way, doesn’t seem like a good fit for either side.

karaterobot 4y ago
Maybe. It could also be some bug, or misconfiguration, version conflict, or whatever in their interview problem repository that they haven't fixed, because no interview candidates want to admit that it took them 3 hours just to get it running. Their actual production code could be an updated version of the same code, or different code altogether. In other words, this could be a perfectly good company, but the engineers don't spend time debugging the interview process when they aren't asked to. I would agree that companies that give "2-3 hour" take home problems are a red flag for me — red as in, I won't do it anymore. That situation becomes an arms race quickly: if I can solve it in 3 hours, why not spend another 3 hours doing a second, more elegant solution that makes me look even smarter? I'm sure that's what the other candidates I'm competing with are doing. And if they're spending 6 hours, I should spend 8 hours at least, to get an edge over them. But they know I'm spending 8 hours, so they're probably spending 10...
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  >I would agree that companies that give "2-3 hour" take home problems are a red flag for me I wouldn't say simply having at 2-3 hour take home by itself is red flag. But if the take home is a pile of hot garbage (poorly or inadequate documentation on how to setup a local env for example) then that is red flag. My first hire (that wasn't someone I knew/previously worked with) I did not require that they complete a take home test. That hire turned out to be a complete disaster. I have since started requiring take home tests, and I will never again hire anyone that I don't know without a take home test. After requiring take home tests the candidates that have been hired have been much better.
anaganisk 4y ago
Why the assumptions? Not everything is a docker run. I can think of several well documented setups that can take upward of 2 hours, especially if you dont have high-speed internet or not so powerfull computer at home.
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  >Not everything is a docker run. It doesn't have to be a docker run. >I can think of several well documented setups that can take upward of 2 hours If ALL you have is "well documented" setups that take 2 hours, then that company sucks. Look you don't have to have docker, but if you have a setup that is merely a Confluence page, or a pdf file, and don't have ANY shell scripts, or any way whatsoever to bootstrap setting up your environment locally, then that is a massive red flag.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
I love it, people pretending they've NEVER been axle-wrapped in this shit in their careers. "It works on my machine!"
eschneider 4y ago
Eh...I just finished a month of interviews and I ran into two companies who were early on in their hiring process and their take home test definitions/environment instructions were just...broken. Sure, I debugged it and got it working while going over the issues with the interviewers but you're always left wondering "is this part of the test" or "do these folks just suck?"
lisasays 4y ago
Or they're making the cardinal mistake of hiring developers who have N years of experience painting brown houses (per the link below) -- i.e. "Have you worked with exactly our stack, such that you have all the build steps and gotchas in your muscle memory?" (without a good reason for doing so) - rather than general technical and GSD skills, which usually. Granted, sometimes fluency in the XYZ of their stack matters - but usually it just doesn't, and grilling people for this fluency shows a lack of sense for the broader picture, in my view. https://versastudio.com/blog/if-carpenters-were-hired-like-programmers https://versastudio.com/blog/if-carpenters-were-hired-like-p...

karaterobot 4y ago

Maybe. It could also be some bug, or misconfiguration, version conflict, or whatever in their interview problem repository that they haven't fixed, because no interview candidates want to admit that it took them 3 hours just to get it running. Their actual production code could be an updated version of the same code, or different code altogether. In other words, this could be a perfectly good company, but the engineers don't spend time debugging the interview process when they aren't asked to. I would agree that companies that give "2-3 hour" take home problems are a red flag for me — red as in, I won't do it anymore. That situation becomes an arms race quickly: if I can solve it in 3 hours, why not spend another 3 hours doing a second, more elegant solution that makes me look even smarter? I'm sure that's what the other candidates I'm competing with are doing. And if they're spending 6 hours, I should spend 8 hours at least, to get an edge over them. But they know I'm spending 8 hours, so they're probably spending 10...

hitpointdrew 4y ago
>I would agree that companies that give "2-3 hour" take home problems are a red flag for me I wouldn't say simply having at 2-3 hour take home by itself is red flag. But if the take home is a pile of hot garbage (poorly or inadequate documentation on how to setup a local env for example) then that is red flag. My first hire (that wasn't someone I knew/previously worked with) I did not require that they complete a take home test. That hire turned out to be a complete disaster. I have since started requiring take home tests, and I will never again hire anyone that I don't know without a take home test. After requiring take home tests the candidates that have been hired have been much better.

anaganisk 4y ago

Why the assumptions? Not everything is a docker run. I can think of several well documented setups that can take upward of 2 hours, especially if you dont have high-speed internet or not so powerfull computer at home.

hitpointdrew 4y ago
>Not everything is a docker run. It doesn't have to be a docker run. >I can think of several well documented setups that can take upward of 2 hours If ALL you have is "well documented" setups that take 2 hours, then that company sucks. Look you don't have to have docker, but if you have a setup that is merely a Confluence page, or a pdf file, and don't have ANY shell scripts, or any way whatsoever to bootstrap setting up your environment locally, then that is a massive red flag.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

I love it, people pretending they've NEVER been axle-wrapped in this shit in their careers. "It works on my machine!"

eschneider 4y ago

Eh...I just finished a month of interviews and I ran into two companies who were early on in their hiring process and their take home test definitions/environment instructions were just...broken. Sure, I debugged it and got it working while going over the issues with the interviewers but you're always left wondering "is this part of the test" or "do these folks just suck?"

lisasays 4y ago

Or they're making the cardinal mistake of hiring developers who have N years of experience painting brown houses (per the link below) -- i.e. "Have you worked with exactly our stack, such that you have all the build steps and gotchas in your muscle memory?" (without a good reason for doing so) - rather than general technical and GSD skills, which usually. Granted, sometimes fluency in the XYZ of their stack matters - but usually it just doesn't, and grilling people for this fluency shows a lack of sense for the broader picture, in my view. https://versastudio.com/blog/if-carpenters-were-hired-like-programmers https://versastudio.com/blog/if-carpenters-were-hired-like-p...