3 ms·
> Personally I’d be hard-pressed to move an applicant with a less-than-obsessive attitude to naming forward to the next round. Why would you assume that improm
by lapcat 3y ago
> Personally I’d be hard-pressed to move an applicant with a less-than-obsessive attitude to naming forward to the next round.
Why would you assume that impromptu interview code would be the same as production code?
- stanleydrew 3y agoIt's of course not the same. But technical interviews aren't always just about "does this solution you wrote actually work." A good interviewer will be paying attention to how you solve the problem and how you communicate the choices you make along the way. Good naming is part of good communication.
- lapcat 3y agoExcept every interviewer has their own idiosyncratic criteria in their own mind, and they rarely practice good communication themselves by telling the job application ahead of time what those idiosyncratic criteria are exactly.
- Kiro 3y agoI would assume it to be much better than production code.
- lopkeny12ko 3y agoIf you're not putting forward an honest effort for writing code that resembles code you'd be comfortable putting into production during an interview, then I'd pass on hiring you too.
- lapcat 3y agoAnd yet so many interviewers say, "We don't care whether the code is perfect, we just want to see how you think." The insanity for job applicants is that you never know which kind of interviewer you're going to get until it's too late. Every interviewer has their own nitpicks, yet they somehow believe that their specific nitpicks should be assumed to be universal requirements. And then hiring managers complain that good programmers are difficult to find, lacking the self-awareness to see how many candidates they arbitrarily exclude for dumb reasons. I've seen people say "I'd pass on a candidate for X" for more or less all X.