4 ms·

This would be an offer on the spot from me

stronglikedan 11mo ago
> me: It's more of a "I can't believe you're asking me that." > interviewer: Great, we find that candidates who can't get this right don't do well here. > me: ... Shit attitude from that candidate, considering the interviewer is completely correct. I wouldn't hire them since they are obviously a problem employee. For those that don't know, Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test. That's why this candidate failed and didn't get the job.
- darth_aardvark 11mo ago
  For those that don't know even more, this interview never happened and this interviewer doesn't exist. It's a funny joke on the internet.
  - toast0 11mo ago
    If the candidate didn't even show up to an interview, they're definitely not worth hiring. :p
- NitpickLawyer 11mo ago
  > Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test The amount of (highly credentialed) interviewees that can't 0-shot a correct and fully functional fizzbuzz is also way higher than a lot of people would think. That's where the attitude part also comes in.
- cyphar 11mo ago
  > For those that don't know, Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test. The articles which popularised FizzBuzz as an interview question stated as a categorical fact that most computer science graduates or programmer candidates (one article even said 199/200!![2]) cannot do FizzBuzz[1,2,3] and were absolutely recommending it as an aptitude test. I personally think this whole thing was simply untrue back in 2007 (or at the very least incredibly overstated) and we are paying the price for it with ridiculous 15-stage interviews as a paranoid response to some urban legend from ~20 years ago. [1]: https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-developers-who-grok-coding/ https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-de... [2]: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz.... [3]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/
n4r9 11mo ago
A massively over-engineered, incorrect solution?
- jiveturkey 11mo ago
  A candidate that appreciates the value of the question, yet won't subject themselves to the absurdity of demonstrating compliance. Yes, very much yes.
  - n4r9 11mo ago
    I'd worry about them over-complicating solutions at work as well.
    - jiveturkey 11mo ago
      I definitely wouldn't want to work on your team, if that's how you interpret such an answer. Perfect interview then -- we've both eliminated the other as a viable employee/employer, so that's a win and we got there from just 1 trivial coding question. There's so much more to say here, but this is no longer timely, plus this isn't great forum for such discussion. FWIW I have never been asked this question or similar, but since it's so famous I do have my own answer at the ready, which is just slightly more complex than the naive solution, but still well within the realm of production-worthy (maintainable, testable, readable) code. We don't really ever see any discussion of such because of course it isn't "interesting".

> me: It's more of a "I can't believe you're asking me that." > interviewer: Great, we find that candidates who can't get this right don't do well here. > me: ... Shit attitude from that candidate, considering the interviewer is completely correct. I wouldn't hire them since they are obviously a problem employee. For those that don't know, Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test. That's why this candidate failed and didn't get the job.

darth_aardvark 11mo ago
For those that don't know even more, this interview never happened and this interviewer doesn't exist. It's a funny joke on the internet.
- toast0 11mo ago
  If the candidate didn't even show up to an interview, they're definitely not worth hiring. :p
NitpickLawyer 11mo ago
> Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test The amount of (highly credentialed) interviewees that can't 0-shot a correct and fully functional fizzbuzz is also way higher than a lot of people would think. That's where the attitude part also comes in.
cyphar 11mo ago
> For those that don't know, Fizz Buzz is less an aptitude test and more of an attitude test. The articles which popularised FizzBuzz as an interview question stated as a categorical fact that most computer science graduates or programmer candidates (one article even said 199/200!![2]) cannot do FizzBuzz[1,2,3] and were absolutely recommending it as an aptitude test. I personally think this whole thing was simply untrue back in 2007 (or at the very least incredibly overstated) and we are paying the price for it with ridiculous 15-stage interviews as a paranoid response to some urban legend from ~20 years ago. [1]: https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-developers-who-grok-coding/ https://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-de... [2]: http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz.html http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/01/dont-overthink-fizzbuzz.... [3]: https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/ https://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/

n4r9 11mo ago

A massively over-engineered, incorrect solution?

jiveturkey 11mo ago
A candidate that appreciates the value of the question, yet won't subject themselves to the absurdity of demonstrating compliance. Yes, very much yes.
- n4r9 11mo ago
  I'd worry about them over-complicating solutions at work as well.
  - jiveturkey 11mo ago
    I definitely wouldn't want to work on your team, if that's how you interpret such an answer. Perfect interview then -- we've both eliminated the other as a viable employee/employer, so that's a win and we got there from just 1 trivial coding question. There's so much more to say here, but this is no longer timely, plus this isn't great forum for such discussion. FWIW I have never been asked this question or similar, but since it's so famous I do have my own answer at the ready, which is just slightly more complex than the naive solution, but still well within the realm of production-worthy (maintainable, testable, readable) code. We don't really ever see any discussion of such because of course it isn't "interesting".