6 ms·

>simply flat-out can't program This phrase is seriously abused and it needs to stop because our field has anything but standardized and well-known competencies

>simply flat-out can't program This phrase is seriously abused and it needs to stop because our field has anything but standardized and well-known competencies that we expect people to know before they commit anything. Compiling main() with an assignment and a print is technically programming, but has extremely little to do with what is actually being developed in real products. You aren't going to give anyone a job if this is all they can do. As soon as you get out of the absolute basics (IMO, if/for/assignment/operators), your demands are simply arbitrary with what you think will indicate that someone can do the job. You might only consider someone who can pass FizzBuzz as a 'real programmer'. Someone else might only consider someone who knows and can implement advanced patterns and quickly absorb an unfamiliar API as a 'real programmer'. Programming-Genius-32 might only think someone's a 'real programmer' when he can implement every algorithm from MIT's curriculum from scratch. And if I had to make a wild guess, I would guess that people create their own standards of what a 'real programmer' is based on things they have already solved or things they read from someone else. Then they go make hiring decisions based on this standard. It is very likely that someone can look down on many of us and call us fake programmers because they're just so much further ahead. Convincing someone that you are a real programmer of a certain skill level is a social exercise, not a technical one.

mkozlows 12y ago
No, I mean it literally, as in can't do do a loop/if/assignment level operation. ("Write a function that returns the sum of the two largest numbers in an array" is the literal question I would ask that the majority of candidates -- all with years of experience doing software dev -- were unable to answer.) They simply flat-out could not program. Full stop.
- FLUX-YOU 12y ago
  And if I did this in your interview, how would you feel about that? List<int> blah = new List<int> { 3, 8, 2, 1, 5, 9, 0, 12, 14 }; // pretend I don't know the numbers :) blah.Sort(); blah.Reverse(); return blah[0] + blah[1];
  - alkonaut 12y ago
    As an interviewer, I would have hoped for this: int sum = blah.OrderByDescending(x => x).Take(2).Sum();
  - rakoo 12y ago
    At least it works. Since you're able to give that in not even a minute, the interviewer has plenty of time to go further: - Do you see any problem with your method ? - If yes (you should say yes), how can you improve it ? In other words: the real point of asking technical questions is not can you code but much more can you engineer a solution to a problem.
  - minimaxir 12y ago
    Clearly your Reverse() is unnecessary and inefficient when you can just do return blah[blah.size()-1] + blah[blah.size()-2]; I totally would not hire you. :P
  - mkozlows 12y ago
    Congratulations, you are now better than 2/3 of applicants I saw. I'd follow up by asking whether there's another way you could have done this (the obvious loop and store method); if you didn't come up with it, I'd explain it to you, paying attention to how well you seemed to understand it. I'd go on to ask about what characteristics make one of those solutions better than the other, hoping you'll mention the performance characteristics of sort vs. simple iteration, and maybe also the maintainability/extensibility of the two methods. And then I'd move on to my next question with cautious hope.
    - Luyt 12y ago
      Another way to do it, assuming that the list can be mutated: find the largest number in the array, store it somewhere and remove it from the list. Do this a second time. Then add those two numbers. It evades sorting the array, but you have to search it twice. a = [7, 9, 2, 8] highest = max(a) a.remove(highest) nexthighest = max(a) a.remove(nexthighest) print highest + nexthighest Optimisation: just scan the array once, and keep track of the two highest numbers. a = [7, 9, 2, 8] highest = None nexthighest = None for item in a: if not highest or item > highest: highest = item elif not nexthighest or item > nexthighest: nexthighest = item print highest + nexthighest
gizmo686 12y ago
>Compiling main() with an assignment and a print is technically programming, but has extremely little to do with what is actually being developed in real products. You aren't going to give anyone a job if this is all they can do. I do not think that is even necessary to being a programmer. It is possible that someone has always worked on projects with an already existing build system, and only knew to run "make" (or equivalent) to compile. These people could be competent at actually programming, but not know how to compile something outside of an existing build system.
giaour 12y ago
No true Scotsman would question my definition of a "real programmer."
eichin 12y ago
You're missing one key thing - by the time we see the candidate they've given us a resume that says that they can and have programmed some actual things in some actual langauges. How do you explain their inability to then do some trivial thing (more trivial than fizzbuzz even) in the language that they've already claimed skill in? I could be wrong, but these simple tasks seem to help distinguish "hung out on a team that did those things" or even "has been stuck in meetings 38 hours/week for the last 5 years and is startlingly good at powerpoint", when those are not what we're looking for.

mkozlows 12y ago

No, I mean it literally, as in can't do do a loop/if/assignment level operation. ("Write a function that returns the sum of the two largest numbers in an array" is the literal question I would ask that the majority of candidates -- all with years of experience doing software dev -- were unable to answer.) They simply flat-out could not program. Full stop.

FLUX-YOU 12y ago
And if I did this in your interview, how would you feel about that? List<int> blah = new List<int> { 3, 8, 2, 1, 5, 9, 0, 12, 14 }; // pretend I don't know the numbers :) blah.Sort(); blah.Reverse(); return blah[0] + blah[1];
- alkonaut 12y ago
  As an interviewer, I would have hoped for this: int sum = blah.OrderByDescending(x => x).Take(2).Sum();
- rakoo 12y ago
  At least it works. Since you're able to give that in not even a minute, the interviewer has plenty of time to go further: - Do you see any problem with your method ? - If yes (you should say yes), how can you improve it ? In other words: the real point of asking technical questions is not can you code but much more can you engineer a solution to a problem.
- minimaxir 12y ago
  Clearly your Reverse() is unnecessary and inefficient when you can just do return blah[blah.size()-1] + blah[blah.size()-2]; I totally would not hire you. :P
- mkozlows 12y ago
  Congratulations, you are now better than 2/3 of applicants I saw. I'd follow up by asking whether there's another way you could have done this (the obvious loop and store method); if you didn't come up with it, I'd explain it to you, paying attention to how well you seemed to understand it. I'd go on to ask about what characteristics make one of those solutions better than the other, hoping you'll mention the performance characteristics of sort vs. simple iteration, and maybe also the maintainability/extensibility of the two methods. And then I'd move on to my next question with cautious hope.
  - Luyt 12y ago
    Another way to do it, assuming that the list can be mutated: find the largest number in the array, store it somewhere and remove it from the list. Do this a second time. Then add those two numbers. It evades sorting the array, but you have to search it twice. a = [7, 9, 2, 8] highest = max(a) a.remove(highest) nexthighest = max(a) a.remove(nexthighest) print highest + nexthighest Optimisation: just scan the array once, and keep track of the two highest numbers. a = [7, 9, 2, 8] highest = None nexthighest = None for item in a: if not highest or item > highest: highest = item elif not nexthighest or item > nexthighest: nexthighest = item print highest + nexthighest

gizmo686 12y ago

>Compiling main() with an assignment and a print is technically programming, but has extremely little to do with what is actually being developed in real products. You aren't going to give anyone a job if this is all they can do. I do not think that is even necessary to being a programmer. It is possible that someone has always worked on projects with an already existing build system, and only knew to run "make" (or equivalent) to compile. These people could be competent at actually programming, but not know how to compile something outside of an existing build system.

giaour 12y ago

No true Scotsman would question my definition of a "real programmer."

eichin 12y ago

You're missing one key thing - by the time we see the candidate they've given us a resume that says that they can and have programmed some actual things in some actual langauges. How do you explain their inability to then do some trivial thing (more trivial than fizzbuzz even) in the language that they've already claimed skill in? I could be wrong, but these simple tasks seem to help distinguish "hung out on a team that did those things" or even "has been stuck in meetings 38 hours/week for the last 5 years and is startlingly good at powerpoint", when those are not what we're looking for.