3 ms·

I wish I could have seen the code at each step instead of just, "That was easy." Because he seems to have focused on the functionality of the code, not on the c

I wish I could have seen the code at each step instead of just, "That was easy." Because he seems to have focused on the functionality of the code, not on the clear message that their goal is to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can make your code. I don't think this interview was actually about the code, it was about long-term maintenance and risk avoidance. So while I am not saying I love this interview method, and other comments are correct that weird tricks seem to be required... I still think the interview served its purpose. OP is not a good match for this company. No judgment implied there - this is the purpose of interviews: for both sides to see if they work well together. In this case, they do not.

grajaganDev 2y ago
Would any developer be a good match for that company? My judgment is that this company has no idea of what they are doing. Not uncommon for companies with under 50 employees.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  They know exactly what they're doing. The code, while clever, is bad for understandability, extensibility, and debuggability. They tried throughout the interview to get the candidate to do something else, and he ignored all advice and hints. If this even happened at all. It sounds like a "just so" work of fiction.
  - joshuaissac 2y ago
    The rules that they added, like the ban on mathematical operations, made it clear that they were not looking for understandable code. His code could handle new rules without a problem, so extensibility was not a problem either.
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Near the top of the article: >While the base algorithm is very simple, the point of the exercise is that the interviewer will add new rules to test how you update the code while keeping it readable and maintainable. As for this: >His code could handle new rules without a problem, so extensibility was not a problem either. Ok, now I want you to query a database at runtime and write the output to a file instead if the number is in the database. Good luck with adapting this type-theory solution, and good luck with debugging this crap. It's a PhD-level solution to a freshman-level problem, that is very atypical and uses niche features of the language that might fail unexpectedly due to language limitations. On top of all of that, the story sounds like fiction as well. But who knows.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - grajaganDev 2y ago
    I am not sure that clean, extensible and debuggable code could be written for such a bizarre set of requirements.
whstl 2y ago
> their goal is to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can make your code The rules presented show that the goal is definitely not that.
- kmoser 2y ago
  The way I see it, the rules are simply constraints and obstacles put in place to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can write your code under those conditions.

grajaganDev 2y ago

Would any developer be a good match for that company? My judgment is that this company has no idea of what they are doing. Not uncommon for companies with under 50 employees.

wakawaka28 2y ago
They know exactly what they're doing. The code, while clever, is bad for understandability, extensibility, and debuggability. They tried throughout the interview to get the candidate to do something else, and he ignored all advice and hints. If this even happened at all. It sounds like a "just so" work of fiction.
- joshuaissac 2y ago
  The rules that they added, like the ban on mathematical operations, made it clear that they were not looking for understandable code. His code could handle new rules without a problem, so extensibility was not a problem either.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Near the top of the article: >While the base algorithm is very simple, the point of the exercise is that the interviewer will add new rules to test how you update the code while keeping it readable and maintainable. As for this: >His code could handle new rules without a problem, so extensibility was not a problem either. Ok, now I want you to query a database at runtime and write the output to a file instead if the number is in the database. Good luck with adapting this type-theory solution, and good luck with debugging this crap. It's a PhD-level solution to a freshman-level problem, that is very atypical and uses niche features of the language that might fail unexpectedly due to language limitations. On top of all of that, the story sounds like fiction as well. But who knows.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- grajaganDev 2y ago
  I am not sure that clean, extensible and debuggable code could be written for such a bizarre set of requirements.

whstl 2y ago

> their goal is to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can make your code The rules presented show that the goal is definitely not that.

kmoser 2y ago
The way I see it, the rules are simply constraints and obstacles put in place to see how robust, reliable, and readable you can write your code under those conditions.