Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw401 | Hacker News Reader

And is the signal still strong if candidate has a bad day or for some other reason cannot get the right focus in that specific moment?

Moreover, I think it's highly unprofessional to reinvent the wheel by writing most algorithms for production. I always first look for a bullet proof library for that.

Won't you use a calculator for 345 x 27?

View on HN

Nothing but "try applying again in 6-12 months" can fix the "candidate is having a bad day" cause for a false negative, don't know why you're bringing that up. Similarly this thread is about code in the context of interviewing, not production code, so the whole side-argument about when libraries are/aren't appropriate doesn't seem relevant... As a candidate I've been asked things like "write code to reverse this string" and I've given "this_str[::-1] is probably what I'd use on the job. Do you really want me to write a str_reverse() function? Does it need to be in-place?" Each time is yes at least for the first question, so I do it, but I wouldn't expect it to go to production. When I'm on the interviewer side and made to ask questions like string reverse or whatever I say "no, you don't have to do the lower level implementation", all I'm trying to verify is that someone can program, not that they can program arbitrary foo the way I want it done, but typically people start with the low level function, even when I say "use whatever language you want" they still go for Java or similar.

Yes, I think it is fairly _realiable_. It reveals whether the candidate can't really write code.

Again, the idea of the coding test in interviews is not to produce production quality code. It is testing that the candidate's brain can write some code. Try to understand that.

Is it a perfect measurement? Of course not.

Also, the idea is to select an algorithm that doesn't require encyclopedic knowledge of different algorithms. Even (any) sorting algorithms may be too complex for this purpose.

345 x 27 = 2415 + 6900 = 9315

You don't need a calculator. Use your brain and show your work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com