4 ms·

The algorithm design is all said out loud. If I printed up a page of code and handed it to the candidate and said "make it better" I might expect them to work

The algorithm design is all said out loud. If I printed up a page of code and handed it to the candidate and said "make it better" I might expect them to work on style. So I don't mind answering questions during the interview process. The candidate might be nervous and I should be clear about my expectations. I don't like mind games like picking a fight and making sure the candidate responds the "right" way.[1] I would hold no points against them for asking on clarification for what "better" means, as long as I didn't they they were trying to be difficult and accepted that faster was better. I'm sorry if you don't think I would hire you. Maybe I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean you aren't a good coder. But I also think you shouldn't be intimidated by "algorithm invention." You probably do this a bunch already. In the order you write your code you are probably already doing implicit algorithm invention. I think you can write the code to figure out the biggest number in a list if you sit down to do it, and once you do that finding the second biggest just involves keeping track of one more thing and doing one more test on each pass through. Often the question is figuring out what data structure you should be using. Oh, I don't actually expect anyone to give me the perfect answer of how to find the nth-biggest element in the list. In fact, if a candidate did give the perfect answer, I would say "this person is more qualified than me, please hire." I'm not capable myself of giving the perfect answer even though I've thought about it a few times and it's essentially a question I've practiced. [1] See question 7 at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000073.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000073.html

klibertp 14y ago
"The algorithm design is all said out loud." Ok, I thought it was being written as a code, even if just on paper or a board. "accepted that faster was better" The point we - grey-area and I - are trying to make is that it's not always the case, or rather that the "betterness" of faster implementation is, in practice, dependent in large parts on other characteristics of the code. If someone deleted slower implementation along with tests and docs and replaced it with faster, but undocumented, untested implementation I would not consider it a change for the better. And I think you would agree with this in general (of course there are situations when a change like this is necessary!), and I think this is just a misunderstanding on my part - I was thinking about actual code, an implementation, all along while you were talking about description of the algorithm with words. In this case - with one additional assumption that memory complexity is irrelevant or not changed, but that's nitpicking - of course faster is better! :) "I think you can write the code to figure out the biggest number in a list" Yes, of course: (foldl max (first lst) (rest lst)) And I can even explain what foldl is and how it works. "you shouldn't be intimidated by "algorithm invention."" I am not "intimidated". I know my limits. I wouldn't be able to invent quicksort during the interview and I wouldn' be able to invent this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 even if my life depended on this and I was given all the time of universe to do this (but I still coded it). This also depends on what we mean by "inventing". Does using some previously learned technique or adjusting other already known algorithm count as an invention? But from what you say I gather that you wouldn't want me to invent quicksort on the spot - and then it's ok, it seems like I still have a chance of getting a job! ;)
- hvidgaard 14y ago
  http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 was not something someone came up with after a few days at it. They had deep understanding of the statistics behind the algorithm, and an almost unfathomable knowledge in the domain, not to mention a large network to help them. I'm sure that most intelligent people would be able come up with it if they had the same circumstances working in their favor.

klibertp 14y ago

"The algorithm design is all said out loud." Ok, I thought it was being written as a code, even if just on paper or a board. "accepted that faster was better" The point we - grey-area and I - are trying to make is that it's not always the case, or rather that the "betterness" of faster implementation is, in practice, dependent in large parts on other characteristics of the code. If someone deleted slower implementation along with tests and docs and replaced it with faster, but undocumented, untested implementation I would not consider it a change for the better. And I think you would agree with this in general (of course there are situations when a change like this is necessary!), and I think this is just a misunderstanding on my part - I was thinking about actual code, an implementation, all along while you were talking about description of the algorithm with words. In this case - with one additional assumption that memory complexity is irrelevant or not changed, but that's nitpicking - of course faster is better! :) "I think you can write the code to figure out the biggest number in a list" Yes, of course: (foldl max (first lst) (rest lst)) And I can even explain what foldl is and how it works. "you shouldn't be intimidated by "algorithm invention."" I am not "intimidated". I know my limits. I wouldn't be able to invent quicksort during the interview and I wouldn' be able to invent this: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 even if my life depended on this and I was given all the time of universe to do this (but I still coded it). This also depends on what we mean by "inventing". Does using some previously learned technique or adjusting other already known algorithm count as an invention? But from what you say I gather that you wouldn't want me to invent quicksort on the spot - and then it's ok, it seems like I still have a chance of getting a job! ;)

hvidgaard 14y ago
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2346806 was not something someone came up with after a few days at it. They had deep understanding of the statistics behind the algorithm, and an almost unfathomable knowledge in the domain, not to mention a large network to help them. I'm sure that most intelligent people would be able come up with it if they had the same circumstances working in their favor.