> So if you're a tester or a UI interface person or a sysadmin whose work shouldn't really mean worrying about the big O order of algorithms - should these people also be asked questions about algorithms?
Let's address each individually:
- UI design person: we have UI/UX people, which is essentially a non-engineering discipline so won't have the same requirements. There are FE (front end) engineers who will be expected to have the same theoretical foundation as any other engineer;
- the guy says he interviewed as a tester. Google's definition of a tester is different to that of most company. We have SETs (System Engineers in Test), who are expected to have a solid theoretical foundation. This makes more sense once you understand that most of our testing is automated rather than, say, writing and executing manual test scripts.
- Sysadmins (SREs; Site Reliability Engineers) fall into two different categories: those with a more programming bent and those with a more sysadmin bent. The first lot will be asked algorithm questions. The second are more likely to be asked questions about networking, Linux administration and so on (the first will get these too but probably less).
As for Google Wave, my personal opinion is that it was a solution in search of a problem so I wouldn't look at it as a failing of "softer" disciplines.
Google+, as an example, seems to have been received very well, including on the UI/UX front, which would seem to fall in the same "softer" category. The early G+ successes and positive reaction IMHO stem from a more solid design that delivers value to users, something I don't think Wave ever did.
One last thing I'll add is that Google's career ladders don't necessarily match up exactly to what you'd expect and those ladders are constantly re-evaluated. New ones come into being. Some disappear entirely.