3 ms·

What all algorithm and idiotic interview questions (like moving Mt. Fiji) are great for is the interviewee himself, not the interviewer. They are a huge red-lig

by joesmo 12y ago

What all algorithm and idiotic interview questions (like moving Mt. Fiji) are great for is the interviewee himself, not the interviewer. They are a huge red-light indicator that there is something wrong with the engineering culture and department at the company you're interviewing. While there are exceptions, in my experience, there is such a direct correlation between the two, that questions like this have led me to walking out of interviews (politely of course). Why continue if you know you won't take that horrible position? Obviously, if you're hired to write algorithms, then it might be a different story, but most programmers are simply not writing new algorithms. Ever.

pekk 12y ago
Can you detail a little the kinds of things you associate with stupid questions that make you want to walk out?
jiggy2011 12y ago
Isn't writing algorithms almost the definition of programming?
- nmrm 12y ago
  I think "coming up with interesting algorithms" was the intended meaning. In which case, no, everyday programming is mostly not about designing algorithms. Otherwise, programmers would spend most of their time with journals and books, with a few days of programming each month.
  - jiggy2011 12y ago
    Interesting is fairly subjective but ultimately you are designing processes to solve problems. If you cannot demonstrate ability to solve a simple, well trodden problem how will you be able to solve a new one?
    - nmrm 12y ago
      > Interesting is fairly subjective Interesting is a social construction. As such, I would define interesting as worthy of publication in a first or second-tier conference at some point in the history of the field. > If you cannot demonstrate ability to solve a simple, well trodden problem how will you be able to solve a new one? 0. I've seen many well-respected researchers who have solved truly interesting, new-to-humanity problems stumble on well-known problems others consider easy and/or fundamental. In fact, this is probably true for every single researcher. And doubly so for practitioners. One person's fundamental technique is another's blind spot. 1. Simple != easy to come up with. Often exactly the opposite! Take the TH algorithm as an example. It's a very simple algorithm. Small. Simple. Optimal. Awesome. Not trivial to discover, however. 2. Well-trodden -> unless the algorithm is absolutely fundamental and taught everywhere (e.g. sorting), you've given up on testing problem solving skills. You're just testing whether the person's intro/DS/algo professor covered this particular algorithm (and maybe their memory). Or, more likely, rather their random interview studying happened to hit your pet problem. Since curriculum is not anywhere close to uniform in CS -- even among top schools -- this is just silly. 3. Simple problems don't always have (simple) solutions. Create a fair voting scheme.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        It depends on why you are asking the question. Are you literally demanding the candidate spit out the optimal answer immediately? If they can they it means they can remember their algorithms class which is a good signal. If not, can they solve it with a naive method and then make reasonable attempts to iterate on that, even if they never hit an optimal solution? It is a little like a high end restaurant asking a trainee chef to make an omelette, which is apparently common in the culinary industry.
        nmrm 12y ago
        > Are you literally demanding the candidate spit out the optimal answer immediately? I think the author of the article is indicting situations where this is the case. Perhaps he could have been more explicit up front, but reading between the lines this is the situation he's complaining about. > If not, can they solve it with a naive method and then make reasonable attempts to iterate on that, even if they never hit an optimal solution? If I were asking the question, absolutely. > It is a little like a high end restaurant asking a trainee chef to make an omelette, which is apparently common in the culinary industry. Are there omlettes that are "optimal" (very awesome in some sense)? I honestly don't know (and if so, man, I want one!)

by joesmo 12y ago

pekk 12y ago

Can you detail a little the kinds of things you associate with stupid questions that make you want to walk out?

jiggy2011 12y ago

Isn't writing algorithms almost the definition of programming?

nmrm 12y ago
I think "coming up with interesting algorithms" was the intended meaning. In which case, no, everyday programming is mostly not about designing algorithms. Otherwise, programmers would spend most of their time with journals and books, with a few days of programming each month.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Interesting is fairly subjective but ultimately you are designing processes to solve problems. If you cannot demonstrate ability to solve a simple, well trodden problem how will you be able to solve a new one?
  - nmrm 12y ago
    > Interesting is fairly subjective Interesting is a social construction. As such, I would define interesting as worthy of publication in a first or second-tier conference at some point in the history of the field. > If you cannot demonstrate ability to solve a simple, well trodden problem how will you be able to solve a new one? 0. I've seen many well-respected researchers who have solved truly interesting, new-to-humanity problems stumble on well-known problems others consider easy and/or fundamental. In fact, this is probably true for every single researcher. And doubly so for practitioners. One person's fundamental technique is another's blind spot. 1. Simple != easy to come up with. Often exactly the opposite! Take the TH algorithm as an example. It's a very simple algorithm. Small. Simple. Optimal. Awesome. Not trivial to discover, however. 2. Well-trodden -> unless the algorithm is absolutely fundamental and taught everywhere (e.g. sorting), you've given up on testing problem solving skills. You're just testing whether the person's intro/DS/algo professor covered this particular algorithm (and maybe their memory). Or, more likely, rather their random interview studying happened to hit your pet problem. Since curriculum is not anywhere close to uniform in CS -- even among top schools -- this is just silly. 3. Simple problems don't always have (simple) solutions. Create a fair voting scheme.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      It depends on why you are asking the question. Are you literally demanding the candidate spit out the optimal answer immediately? If they can they it means they can remember their algorithms class which is a good signal. If not, can they solve it with a naive method and then make reasonable attempts to iterate on that, even if they never hit an optimal solution? It is a little like a high end restaurant asking a trainee chef to make an omelette, which is apparently common in the culinary industry.
      - nmrm 12y ago
        > Are you literally demanding the candidate spit out the optimal answer immediately? I think the author of the article is indicting situations where this is the case. Perhaps he could have been more explicit up front, but reading between the lines this is the situation he's complaining about. > If not, can they solve it with a naive method and then make reasonable attempts to iterate on that, even if they never hit an optimal solution? If I were asking the question, absolutely. > It is a little like a high end restaurant asking a trainee chef to make an omelette, which is apparently common in the culinary industry. Are there omlettes that are "optimal" (very awesome in some sense)? I honestly don't know (and if so, man, I want one!)