News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test by clifanatic on Thursday October 13, 2016 @04:02PM (#12703582)
> completely failed even the most basic system / coding questions.

But could they at least tell you why quick sort was the best sorting algorithm?

Re:Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test by tankenmate on Friday October 14, 2016 @04:44AM (#12706825)
Apart from the fact that it isn't always the best sorting algorithm and it's pathological worst case is in fact as bad as a bubble sort's worst case (O(n^2) with a higher base operational cost, as at least bubble sort's worst case is somewhat cache friendly). This happens in three cases; 1) all the elements are sorted in descending order, 2) all the elements are sorted in ascending order, or 3) a special case of 1) and 2) combined, all the elements are equal.
Re:Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test by PetahNZ on Thursday October 13, 2016 @06:38PM (#12704733)
Because its quick, right?
Re:Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test by thechao on Friday October 14, 2016 @12:35AM (#12706157)
It also sorts.
Re:Google's “Director of Engineering” Hiring Test by danesparza on Friday October 14, 2016 @09:14AM (#12707818)
Also: It has a cool name. It's much better than 'slowsort'