3 ms·

Two points: First, nobody expects a cabinetmaker to draw a to-scale, installation-quality blueprint on a whiteboard like many companies expect out of whiteboar

Two points: First, nobody expects a cabinetmaker to draw a to-scale, installation-quality blueprint on a whiteboard like many companies expect out of whiteboard coding exercises. Second, a cabinetmaker's portfolio will consist of multiple photographs of completed jobs. It will likely not include detailed specifications of the jobs or records indicating what specific parts of the jobs this cabinetmaker was responsible for and what other carpenters did. It certainly will not include the ability to inspect the actual work done. This industry expects candidates to have a portfolio such that this level of inspection is possible.

frostmatthew 12y ago
Regarding your first point it's extremely rare in my experience to have an interviewer expect perfect/compiable code when whiteboarding (nearly every whiteboarding exercise I've ever done has been prefaced with the interviewer explicitly stating this). They're looking for how you go about solving a problem, they don't care about missing semicolons. As for your second point, just because the ability to easily "inspect the actual work done" is not practical in one profession doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered in a completely different profession where it is practical.
- vonmoltke 12y ago
  > Regarding your first point it's extremely rare in my experience to have an interviewer expect perfect/compiable code when whiteboarding (nearly every whiteboarding exercise I've ever done has been prefaced with the interviewer explicitly stating this). They're looking for how you go about solving a problem, they don't care about missing semicolons. The interview instructions Amazon gave me prior to my in-person interviews specifically said my whiteboard code would be judged on syntax and that I was expected to produce working code, not pseudocode. They are not the only company that has said this to me, so I do not think it is "extremely rare". > As for your second point, just because the ability to easily "inspect the actual work done" is not practical in one profession doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered in a completely different profession where it is practical. For a large portion of programmers, it is impractical. The only way most programmers have representative examples they can show that level of detail in is to do professional-quality work outside of their day job. Expecting them to do so is unreasonable.

frostmatthew 12y ago

Regarding your first point it's extremely rare in my experience to have an interviewer expect perfect/compiable code when whiteboarding (nearly every whiteboarding exercise I've ever done has been prefaced with the interviewer explicitly stating this). They're looking for how you go about solving a problem, they don't care about missing semicolons. As for your second point, just because the ability to easily "inspect the actual work done" is not practical in one profession doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered in a completely different profession where it is practical.

vonmoltke 12y ago
> Regarding your first point it's extremely rare in my experience to have an interviewer expect perfect/compiable code when whiteboarding (nearly every whiteboarding exercise I've ever done has been prefaced with the interviewer explicitly stating this). They're looking for how you go about solving a problem, they don't care about missing semicolons. The interview instructions Amazon gave me prior to my in-person interviews specifically said my whiteboard code would be judged on syntax and that I was expected to produce working code, not pseudocode. They are not the only company that has said this to me, so I do not think it is "extremely rare". > As for your second point, just because the ability to easily "inspect the actual work done" is not practical in one profession doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered in a completely different profession where it is practical. For a large portion of programmers, it is impractical. The only way most programmers have representative examples they can show that level of detail in is to do professional-quality work outside of their day job. Expecting them to do so is unreasonable.