3 ms·

The problem lies in how a start up should evaluate an "older person". I am fresh out of school and think it is completely natural to be asked about new technolo

by eshvk 14y ago

The problem lies in how a start up should evaluate an "older person". I am fresh out of school and think it is completely natural to be asked about new technologies, dynamic programming etc. However, I know a guy in his late thirties who has this inhuman ability to learn a fancy new technology in a week's time and then apply it to solve a complex old problem. Unfortunately, he doesn't necessarily have as good an algorithms background as I do. However, the speed at which he gets stuff is amazing. Does that mean that he is not a valuable asset? Also, how do you distinguish between such a person and a person who has spent a decade in industry and can run circles around you on high level stuff but is lacking when you dig deeper? When I am interviewed for a position, I expect (and even appreciate) being given a coding challenge and being asked to present my github account but I am unsure how scalable that model is for a senior person who has family etc.

cunac 14y ago
it is given that minimum you should be able to do is to code but that doesn't say at all can you actually develop something (think about that for moment) Low level stuff is generally easier to master (hence low part in name) than high level abstract thinking and concepts. Most people can learn low level stuff but most people doesn't grok high level stuff and implications of decisions they make.
- eshvk 14y ago
  Yeah but I would think that evaluating whether a person can code or not is hard. (From both personal experiences as an interviewee/interviewer and the large number of posts regarding interviews that we see on HN every day). During my limited "oldster" interviewing experience as part of my startup job, I have found that people who have spent a long time out of academia find it (slightly) harder to solve questions on trees, graphs etc. On the other hand, they do cream the shit out of problems that you face in your day to day job in industry. On the other hand, people who are fresh out of school typically have the situation in reverse. I myself again feel the best way to evaluate a person's coding ability is to ask them to work on a tiny project. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask a person coming in for a senior position to work on a silly coding challenge.
jakejake 14y ago
I think what you're saying really can apply to all ages. Different programmers have different skills they bring to the table. Some have an amazing ability to crank out a utility app that is easy to use. Some are amazing at complex algorithms and scary assembly debugging, but can't and won't ever be able to design a simple form-based app that makes any sense to normal humans. From a programmer stand-point I don't think either one is any better (although the algorithms guy is likely to think his work is more important :-) But depending on the job or position, one of them may be more useful than the other.

by eshvk 14y ago

cunac 14y ago

it is given that minimum you should be able to do is to code but that doesn't say at all can you actually develop something (think about that for moment) Low level stuff is generally easier to master (hence low part in name) than high level abstract thinking and concepts. Most people can learn low level stuff but most people doesn't grok high level stuff and implications of decisions they make.

eshvk 14y ago
Yeah but I would think that evaluating whether a person can code or not is hard. (From both personal experiences as an interviewee/interviewer and the large number of posts regarding interviews that we see on HN every day). During my limited "oldster" interviewing experience as part of my startup job, I have found that people who have spent a long time out of academia find it (slightly) harder to solve questions on trees, graphs etc. On the other hand, they do cream the shit out of problems that you face in your day to day job in industry. On the other hand, people who are fresh out of school typically have the situation in reverse. I myself again feel the best way to evaluate a person's coding ability is to ask them to work on a tiny project. However, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask a person coming in for a senior position to work on a silly coding challenge.

jakejake 14y ago

I think what you're saying really can apply to all ages. Different programmers have different skills they bring to the table. Some have an amazing ability to crank out a utility app that is easy to use. Some are amazing at complex algorithms and scary assembly debugging, but can't and won't ever be able to design a simple form-based app that makes any sense to normal humans. From a programmer stand-point I don't think either one is any better (although the algorithms guy is likely to think his work is more important :-) But depending on the job or position, one of them may be more useful than the other.