6 ms·

Classic mistake of overthinking it and failing to realize what interviewer really wants - which is to make sure the candidate can actually write code, like at a

Classic mistake of overthinking it and failing to realize what interviewer really wants - which is to make sure the candidate can actually write code, like at all. The question itself doesn't really matter as much as it's just a pretext. I actually asked a variation of this question for many years at Google and it was clear within first 5 mins who has been writing code day-to-day and who's been mostly "brining key stakeholders into conversations at appropriate time".

munificent 2y ago
I love the typo at the end. I have definitely worked with some stakeholders that I would have loved to stuff in a jar of pickling spices and leave on a shelf for several years to ferment.
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  Im dislexik
  - Nevermark 2y ago
    Ha! I thought it was Shakespearean! When you feed people confabulated information, it acts as an encompassing medium, a reality buffer, effectively making them more inert, less engaged, in actual reality. Brined.
spankalee 2y ago
Exactly this. In the interviews I give I care about whether the candidate can write code, yes, but also talk and think about code. The conversation is the most important part of the interview, and the thinking (and communication) is the most important thing I'm trying to judge after basic skills. Like you said, you can get a good sense within the first few lines of pseudocode if someone's at least competent at writing code. But that's just one motivation behind coding questions. It's also very difficult to talk about code, algorithms, and solving problems without a concrete problem and concrete code in front of the candidate and interviewer. So both the question and the code the candidate writes are mainly context for the conversation where I try to see how the candidate thinks. These kind of articles make me sad because I (and many other interviewers I've worked with) try to make it clear that this isn't a test - we don't care so much about being "right" or "wrong", and there shouldn't be any tricks of "a ha" moments. We explain the goals and what we're looking for right up front. And I would hope most interviewers do the same, but I guess not. So there's this persistent myth among both interviewers and candidates that coding questions are about getting a right answer. That's a shame because coding questions get such a bad rap, but I'm not really aware of a better options. Take-home problems and looking at GitHub are unfair to many people. A well-run technical interview should give lots of people a chance to succeed.
- spyspy 2y ago
  Coding tests are an awful place to test someone’s conversational skills. I don’t talk while I code. You don’t either. Honestly I can’t even remember the last time I talked to anyone about the code itself outside of a PR. People talk about architecture and database migrations and why their containers aren’t behaving locally. Nobody ever tests for that stuff.
  - the_sleaze_ 2y ago
    If you're anything like me then you think a lot while you code, like inner monologue thinking, and that's what the interviewer is testing for.
    - 331c8c71 2y ago
      And vocalizing this inner dialogue comes naturally to you I suppose.
      - chessnerd42 2y ago
        If you can't explain your thoughts out loud then you're going to have a difficult time working anywhere.
        simoncion 2y ago
        For me, it's not at all "I'm incapable of explaining this to you given a few minutes to collect my thoughts." and very much "You either get Coding Mode, or you get Conversation Mode, but not only do you never get both at the same time, I need time to context switch from one to the other.". The second paragraph in this comment is very, very, very close to how my brain operates: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40290732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40290732>. And I've been programming professionally for quite a long while now, so this quirk of mine doesn't seem to have made it difficult for me to work at programming shops.
        DHPersonal 2y ago
nineplay 2y ago
The problem is that the candidate has been assured that they will be asked 'leet' code questions where solving the problem isn't enough, they will also be asked about O notation and how the code can be optimized and whether to use memoization or recursion. This is what the books will tell you, this is what YouTube will tell you, this is what 'helpful' recruiters will tell you. And IME this is what most interviewers have been taught. They've got a list of sample questions, they've been told that if they give the knapsack problem and the interviewee doesn't immediately call out 'dynamic programming' than the interviewee is a pass. If you only want to see working code than you are the exception rather than the rule.
- kevincox 2y ago
  I will ask all of those questions. But I don't expect perfect answers. You should at least know what big O is. I would really like it if you can tell an O(n^2) algorithm from a linear one. (That is often really important in real-world code). I would like you to consider different ways you can optimize the code. I don't expect you to quickly crank out a novel optimal algorithm. But I like to see that you can think about how to solve problems programmatically. I would like to see you can identify differences in different algorithms and what tradeoffs there are. Considering different approaches that may be faster also shows that you didn't just memorize an algorithm from somewhere but that too took time to actual understand the problem and build a mental model in your head. I have given people great reviews when they couldn't come up with a working algorthim because the clearly knew how to think like a programmer and considered all of the important things.
  - nineplay 2y ago
    That's a pretty far cry from > which is to make sure the candidate can actually write code, like at all It's also still a terrible approach and only gets leet code crammers.
    - valicord 2y ago
      are you suggesting that only leet code crammers can tell the difference between quadratic and linear algorithm?
_akhe 2y ago
I disagree, I think it's a failure of recruiting if you got someone into an interview who can't code "at all". That must mean nobody at the company is technical "at all" either then, if you are getting people that far along without having any clue if they even write code at all. I don't have this problem - I can easily tell who is good and who is not good by looking at their stuff online, which repos they are contributing to and what their contribution is. I look at personal projects - I can easily tell what parts they wrote vs didn't because it's usually specific to the project. I can tell from their blog posts and comments, especially GitHub comments - I can even see if they're pushing features at 11PM on a Friday if the obsession piece is crucial to the hire. People who say all their work is hidden under NDA or they're new grads and haven't done anything yet - sorry, if there's nothing to view online I just wouldn't qualify you to interview. Though I have given out 50+ code tests in my career because I had to, I would never choose to do this, if given the chance when hiring someone I would never give them a code test. I think it's an amateur move and wastes everyone's time. At its best (as in the case of CTCI interviews) it's an exclusivity filter for academics who memorized the optimal data structures for algorithms as taught in school, but the candidate might not have any of the skills needed to build app features, perform DevOps, etc. or even operate a Terminal - CTCI doesn't cover anything async, nothing about UIs, APIs, databases, services, git, design, file formats, etc. it's purely academic sport. And like I said, a good developer's work should be highly visible anyway - skip the random code test. I would spend the recruiting effort finding specific developers using specific technologies that aligns with the role and making them excited about the opportunity rather than canvasing 1000 code tests out to anyone who applies.
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  > That must mean nobody at the company is technical "at all" either then, if you are getting people that far along without having any clue if they even write code at all. Lots of people skate by in technical roles by barely doing anything technical. Lots of people also overinflate their achievements in resumes and conversations aka lying. How is non technical recruiter supposed to evaluate their coding chops? > People who say all their work is hidden under NDA or they're new grads and haven't done anything yet - sorry, if there's nothing to view online I just wouldn't qualify you to interview. Lol, great method! I have a better one - just hire acm winners. No need to test them
analyte123 2y ago
My go-to first screening question, regardless of where I work, is to present some JSON from a public API relevant to the domain (nothing too crazy, maybe 2 or 3 levels of nesting max), then ask the candidate to do a filter plus a sum or max - then for bonus, analysis or refactoring of their choice. Way too often, this results in a painful slog, lots of hints from me, and, nowadays, snippets of AI generated code copied in that actually solve part of the problem but that they don't read and therefore end up breaking.
globular-toast 2y ago
Yes. I've filtered out countless candidates who can't code like this. It's amazing how people will fire off applications to jobs they can't do. You might doubt this because you wouldn't do it, but just wait until you get to sift through a fresh wave of applicants. Has everyone I hired got "perfect marks" on the test? Of course not! It's not about that. It's about seeing how they react to a problem, watching them break it down, ask questions, and, ultimately, get on with it. If the job is too sweep floors you need to be able to hold a broom. It's as simple as that.
- dilyevsky 2y ago
  Yes, unless you’re in a niche area or only hiring through a network, you’re going to sift through mountains of unqualified candidates because those are mostly the ones on the market (see Market for Lemons[0]) [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons
s_dev 2y ago
>Classic mistake of overthinking it and failing to realize what interviewer really wants - which is to make sure the candidate can actually write code, like at all. What about the lad who develops homebrew who got rejected from Google because he wasn't able to invert a binary tree on the spot? Many Googlers use his software internally and externally. If the purpose of the interview is to make sure he can code why did he fail? https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejecting-Max-Howell-the-author-of-Homebrew-for-not-being-able-to-invert-a-binary-tree/answer/Max-Howell?share=100e0bb6&srid=unBJ9 https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejectin... He seems to have a great attitude and would fit right in but it's clear Google is optimising to keep people out rather than find great software Devs.
- shawabawa3 2y ago
  Why does "Many Googlers use his software internally and externally" mean he would be a good hire for Google? From all his public complaining about failing an interview it seems Google did the right thing not hiring him, he has a massive ego and it's very possible that "writing homebrew" is less useful to google than "inverting a binary tree"
  - sevagh 2y ago
    It means that he created a tool, with his skills and capabilities, that is a force multiplier for other Google engineers. This is a straight up undeniable example that his capabilities _already_ brought value to Google and their stacked deck of genius non-egostical binary tree inverters. There's not a more pragmatic measure of whether somebody can code than a track record of a successful code project used by other coders.
  - s_dev 2y ago
    Here's another way of phrasing it -- if Linus Torvalds went for an interview with Google would he have to invert a binary tree and if he failed to do so (maybe he misconstrues the question and messes up or him being Linus and just refusing) would that be a good reason to reject him? Linus also can be equally or far more egotistical than Max Howell.
mihaaly 2y ago
If the interviewer want to know if someone can write code at all, then why he/she expects much more than that in an interview? I believe there is no single declaration about 'what the interviewer' wants. Especially that several times they do not know themselves, just try to mimic what is expected from them or seen in some random situation they came across. Sometimes, of course. --- "brining key stakeholders into conversations at appropriate time" This is some very good quality euphemism here, two thumbs up! : ))
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

munificent 2y ago

I love the typo at the end. I have definitely worked with some stakeholders that I would have loved to stuff in a jar of pickling spices and leave on a shelf for several years to ferment.

dilyevsky 2y ago
Im dislexik
- Nevermark 2y ago
  Ha! I thought it was Shakespearean! When you feed people confabulated information, it acts as an encompassing medium, a reality buffer, effectively making them more inert, less engaged, in actual reality. Brined.

spankalee 2y ago

Exactly this. In the interviews I give I care about whether the candidate can write code, yes, but also talk and think about code. The conversation is the most important part of the interview, and the thinking (and communication) is the most important thing I'm trying to judge after basic skills. Like you said, you can get a good sense within the first few lines of pseudocode if someone's at least competent at writing code. But that's just one motivation behind coding questions. It's also very difficult to talk about code, algorithms, and solving problems without a concrete problem and concrete code in front of the candidate and interviewer. So both the question and the code the candidate writes are mainly context for the conversation where I try to see how the candidate thinks. These kind of articles make me sad because I (and many other interviewers I've worked with) try to make it clear that this isn't a test - we don't care so much about being "right" or "wrong", and there shouldn't be any tricks of "a ha" moments. We explain the goals and what we're looking for right up front. And I would hope most interviewers do the same, but I guess not. So there's this persistent myth among both interviewers and candidates that coding questions are about getting a right answer. That's a shame because coding questions get such a bad rap, but I'm not really aware of a better options. Take-home problems and looking at GitHub are unfair to many people. A well-run technical interview should give lots of people a chance to succeed.

spyspy 2y ago
Coding tests are an awful place to test someone’s conversational skills. I don’t talk while I code. You don’t either. Honestly I can’t even remember the last time I talked to anyone about the code itself outside of a PR. People talk about architecture and database migrations and why their containers aren’t behaving locally. Nobody ever tests for that stuff.
- the_sleaze_ 2y ago
  If you're anything like me then you think a lot while you code, like inner monologue thinking, and that's what the interviewer is testing for.
  - 331c8c71 2y ago
    And vocalizing this inner dialogue comes naturally to you I suppose.
    - chessnerd42 2y ago
      If you can't explain your thoughts out loud then you're going to have a difficult time working anywhere.
      - simoncion 2y ago
        For me, it's not at all "I'm incapable of explaining this to you given a few minutes to collect my thoughts." and very much "You either get Coding Mode, or you get Conversation Mode, but not only do you never get both at the same time, I need time to context switch from one to the other.". The second paragraph in this comment is very, very, very close to how my brain operates: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40290732 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40290732>. And I've been programming professionally for quite a long while now, so this quirk of mine doesn't seem to have made it difficult for me to work at programming shops.
      - DHPersonal 2y ago

nineplay 2y ago

The problem is that the candidate has been assured that they will be asked 'leet' code questions where solving the problem isn't enough, they will also be asked about O notation and how the code can be optimized and whether to use memoization or recursion. This is what the books will tell you, this is what YouTube will tell you, this is what 'helpful' recruiters will tell you. And IME this is what most interviewers have been taught. They've got a list of sample questions, they've been told that if they give the knapsack problem and the interviewee doesn't immediately call out 'dynamic programming' than the interviewee is a pass. If you only want to see working code than you are the exception rather than the rule.

kevincox 2y ago
I will ask all of those questions. But I don't expect perfect answers. You should at least know what big O is. I would really like it if you can tell an O(n^2) algorithm from a linear one. (That is often really important in real-world code). I would like you to consider different ways you can optimize the code. I don't expect you to quickly crank out a novel optimal algorithm. But I like to see that you can think about how to solve problems programmatically. I would like to see you can identify differences in different algorithms and what tradeoffs there are. Considering different approaches that may be faster also shows that you didn't just memorize an algorithm from somewhere but that too took time to actual understand the problem and build a mental model in your head. I have given people great reviews when they couldn't come up with a working algorthim because the clearly knew how to think like a programmer and considered all of the important things.
- nineplay 2y ago
  That's a pretty far cry from > which is to make sure the candidate can actually write code, like at all It's also still a terrible approach and only gets leet code crammers.
  - valicord 2y ago
    are you suggesting that only leet code crammers can tell the difference between quadratic and linear algorithm?

_akhe 2y ago

I disagree, I think it's a failure of recruiting if you got someone into an interview who can't code "at all". That must mean nobody at the company is technical "at all" either then, if you are getting people that far along without having any clue if they even write code at all. I don't have this problem - I can easily tell who is good and who is not good by looking at their stuff online, which repos they are contributing to and what their contribution is. I look at personal projects - I can easily tell what parts they wrote vs didn't because it's usually specific to the project. I can tell from their blog posts and comments, especially GitHub comments - I can even see if they're pushing features at 11PM on a Friday if the obsession piece is crucial to the hire. People who say all their work is hidden under NDA or they're new grads and haven't done anything yet - sorry, if there's nothing to view online I just wouldn't qualify you to interview. Though I have given out 50+ code tests in my career because I had to, I would never choose to do this, if given the chance when hiring someone I would never give them a code test. I think it's an amateur move and wastes everyone's time. At its best (as in the case of CTCI interviews) it's an exclusivity filter for academics who memorized the optimal data structures for algorithms as taught in school, but the candidate might not have any of the skills needed to build app features, perform DevOps, etc. or even operate a Terminal - CTCI doesn't cover anything async, nothing about UIs, APIs, databases, services, git, design, file formats, etc. it's purely academic sport. And like I said, a good developer's work should be highly visible anyway - skip the random code test. I would spend the recruiting effort finding specific developers using specific technologies that aligns with the role and making them excited about the opportunity rather than canvasing 1000 code tests out to anyone who applies.

dilyevsky 2y ago
> That must mean nobody at the company is technical "at all" either then, if you are getting people that far along without having any clue if they even write code at all. Lots of people skate by in technical roles by barely doing anything technical. Lots of people also overinflate their achievements in resumes and conversations aka lying. How is non technical recruiter supposed to evaluate their coding chops? > People who say all their work is hidden under NDA or they're new grads and haven't done anything yet - sorry, if there's nothing to view online I just wouldn't qualify you to interview. Lol, great method! I have a better one - just hire acm winners. No need to test them

analyte123 2y ago

My go-to first screening question, regardless of where I work, is to present some JSON from a public API relevant to the domain (nothing too crazy, maybe 2 or 3 levels of nesting max), then ask the candidate to do a filter plus a sum or max - then for bonus, analysis or refactoring of their choice. Way too often, this results in a painful slog, lots of hints from me, and, nowadays, snippets of AI generated code copied in that actually solve part of the problem but that they don't read and therefore end up breaking.

globular-toast 2y ago

Yes. I've filtered out countless candidates who can't code like this. It's amazing how people will fire off applications to jobs they can't do. You might doubt this because you wouldn't do it, but just wait until you get to sift through a fresh wave of applicants. Has everyone I hired got "perfect marks" on the test? Of course not! It's not about that. It's about seeing how they react to a problem, watching them break it down, ask questions, and, ultimately, get on with it. If the job is too sweep floors you need to be able to hold a broom. It's as simple as that.

dilyevsky 2y ago
Yes, unless you’re in a niche area or only hiring through a network, you’re going to sift through mountains of unqualified candidates because those are mostly the ones on the market (see Market for Lemons[0]) [0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

s_dev 2y ago

>Classic mistake of overthinking it and failing to realize what interviewer really wants - which is to make sure the candidate can actually write code, like at all. What about the lad who develops homebrew who got rejected from Google because he wasn't able to invert a binary tree on the spot? Many Googlers use his software internally and externally. If the purpose of the interview is to make sure he can code why did he fail? https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejecting-Max-Howell-the-author-of-Homebrew-for-not-being-able-to-invert-a-binary-tree/answer/Max-Howell?share=100e0bb6&srid=unBJ9 https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-logic-behind-Google-rejectin... He seems to have a great attitude and would fit right in but it's clear Google is optimising to keep people out rather than find great software Devs.

shawabawa3 2y ago
Why does "Many Googlers use his software internally and externally" mean he would be a good hire for Google? From all his public complaining about failing an interview it seems Google did the right thing not hiring him, he has a massive ego and it's very possible that "writing homebrew" is less useful to google than "inverting a binary tree"
- sevagh 2y ago
  It means that he created a tool, with his skills and capabilities, that is a force multiplier for other Google engineers. This is a straight up undeniable example that his capabilities _already_ brought value to Google and their stacked deck of genius non-egostical binary tree inverters. There's not a more pragmatic measure of whether somebody can code than a track record of a successful code project used by other coders.
- s_dev 2y ago
  Here's another way of phrasing it -- if Linus Torvalds went for an interview with Google would he have to invert a binary tree and if he failed to do so (maybe he misconstrues the question and messes up or him being Linus and just refusing) would that be a good reason to reject him? Linus also can be equally or far more egotistical than Max Howell.

mihaaly 2y ago

If the interviewer want to know if someone can write code at all, then why he/she expects much more than that in an interview? I believe there is no single declaration about 'what the interviewer' wants. Especially that several times they do not know themselves, just try to mimic what is expected from them or seen in some random situation they came across. Sometimes, of course. --- "brining key stakeholders into conversations at appropriate time" This is some very good quality euphemism here, two thumbs up! : ))

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]