Welcome to the Lounge

NightPen wrote:

In looking back on the process it is clear to me what changed. When you punish candidates you only get those candidates that are desperate enough or unsure enough of their own skills that they will put up with that abuse.

NightPen wrote:

When you talk to candidates as the professionals they are you get a whole new level up interaction and find out what you really need to know. Which only comes down to ONE thing: Will they work with your team and be a contributing member.

data = [1, 9, 8, 4, 0, 0, 2, 7, 0, 6, 0];
for (var i = data.length - 2; i >= 0; i--) data.splice(i, !data[i]).length && data.push(0);

int d[] = {1, 9, 8, 4, 0, 0, 2, 7, 0, 6, 0}, *s = d + sizeof d / sizeof *d;
for (int *c = d, *l = d; c < s; c++) if (*c) *l ? *l++ : (*l++ = *c) && (*c = 0);

sickfile wrote:

i could have never thought of the solution you found on the internet.

sickfile wrote:

it's brilliant.

mrmike wrote:

I agree 200%. I got so frustrated with interviews; I even got up and walked out on a couple because of the arbitrary-stretched-to-the-point-of-WTF who the hell has used one of those [insert obscure programming theory] in code in the last 20 years. The disgust has been so acrid that I started re-evaluating my career choices.

mrmike wrote:

I've given interviews and usually just by talking to the applicant inside of a few minutes can pretty quickly tell if the individual is a bullshit artist or not.

kmoorevs wrote:

.your solution provided the correct output but they passed on you anyway.

kmoorevs wrote:

I once believed that if my company ever failed that I could find another job easily. (21+ years of LOB apps for desktop and web) I thought that a resume with dozens of successful (still in use and still generating income) applications might be some strong evidence that I know what I'm doing. After all, programming is just about solving problems using the tools at hand...right?

kmoorevs wrote:

we're expanding and very soon I'll likely be faced with hiring a jr. dev for some of the grunt work.

kmoorevs wrote:

Welcome back Jeremy

Jeremy Falcon wrote:

Does anyone else think that's a fundamentally broken way to find a good programmer?

patbob wrote:

Of course, this only matters if you already have a paying job.

• They catch people who are lying on their resumes. If you've ever done hiring, you know that's a big problem.
• They catch self-taught people who skipped over algorithms and data structures, if that is important to your company.
• They select people who prepped for the interview, people who really want the job.
• Over-training on algorithms for software devs is exactly like over-training on anatomy and physiology for physicians, or over-training on procedures for pilots and astronauts. It's not enough just to have seen an algorithm (or an organ, or a procedure), you need to be able to call that memory immediately to mind, even under stress situations. Coding tests select people who have really dug in and studied. and rejects people who coasted.

• My web site was not designed to seek your praise. It serves me as it is.
• My answer was not designed to insult you, but to address the question of whether coding interviews are broken.
• You only want to hurl insults and not talk about the relevance of the answer. So, like whatever dude.
• I may not have the people skills needed to stroke your ego, but they are sufficient to figure out that lame code, arrogance, and self-righteousness are why you failed that interview. Humility will serve you better next time.