> So 57,000 are worse devs then you ? This is what i hear from your statement, correct me if I am wrong ..
The idea that you can be objectively better or not better at programming, and that it's decidable through one or two simple factors is kinda wrong and goes with OP's point.
It's more on the order of 20k developers, not 57k.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-software-engineers-does-Googl...
>Have you found any correlation between poor code and being able to pass Google's interview ?
cough cough Angular 2
There is an enormous difference between poor code and a library you don't like. I may not be a huge fan of Angular 2, but it's certainly not poorly written code.
Probably not. There's plenty of better workers than me who I wouldn't want to work with.
I am also specifically not passing some objective value judgments here. They may very well be hiring the best developers for what they are doing: they just aren't capable of hiring the type of developers I most enjoy working with. This is a subjective preference, not an objective one.
There are absolutely talented developers who don't value working with the kinds of developers I want to work with and they won't care that Google can't hire them. I have enjoyed working with Google developers in other contexts, but many of them wasted a bunch of time and energy jumping through Google hoops because they decided it was worth it. It is my opinion that they would be better developers if they had spent that time on something useful instead.
Google makes it easy for people I don't care about working with to get hired, and hard for people I proactively want to work with to get hired. Nothing about that is about my skill at all.
He never said they are worse.
>Many extremely talented people want to work for Google.
"Most people do/think XYZ."
Do I have to explain why that's not a good argument?
>They will take the tests, even if they don't agree with the hiring system at all.
Other people don't mind shitty treatment, so what?
This is why i asked for clarifications. the OP said 'Google is incapable of hiring the engineers I want to work with', which implies that the engineers he is looking to work with are NOT there. Google is incapable of hiring them, and since they are top quality devs, someone else (more capable) did.
> Do I have to explain why that's not a good argument?
Yes, please explain. Because you only took the first sentence of my argument. the second sentence was that those "many people" are going to do what it takes, even if it means taking 'stupid' tests, smuggy interviers, and some other large corp bureaucracy (which to me personally is more concerning, but is not specific to Google, rather to any large corp). And why ? My guess is that it's probably so cool,curious, challenging to work on something like Google Maps/Balloons/Self driving cars that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and tradeoffs. THAT was my argument.
> Other people don't mind shitty treatment, so what?
please explain, i didn't understand your point
(edit: spacing)
"Many people want to go to Heaven, and they are going to what it takes, even if it means answering stupid questions, pretending to feel bad about trivial things, and some other large org bureaucracy."
My guess is that it's probably so cool, curious, satisfying to be in Heaven that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and trade-offs.
"Many people voted for Trump", my guess is that it's probably cool, curious, challenging to finally tackle real issues that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and trade-offs.
That's stupid, right? But why?
>My guess is that it's probably so cool,curious, challenging to work on something like Google Maps/Balloons/Self driving cars that they will be willing to make a lot of sacrifices and tradeoffs.
Those people might believe that it's cool, curious, whatever. But then you should end up with "many people think X about Y", not "Y has a property X (because many people think it does)".
>This is why i asked for clarifications. the OP said 'Google is incapable of hiring the engineers I want to work with', which implies that the engineers he is looking to work with are NOT there. Google is incapable of hiring them, and since they are top quality devs, someone else (more capable) did.
He doesn't want to work with them because they are unpleasant to work with (or be around in general), not because there is an issue with their programming capabilities.
That's an interesting assumption to make. I know many programmers who are excellent at what they do and have also outright refused offers from Google, Amazon and Facebook; it's usually on the principle that such large, bureaucratic organizations are quite defective insofar that they are adept at suffocating those who are happiest with maximal flexibility and responsibility.
There's a group who jump from contract to contact, startup to startup, because the thrill of new challenges and little to no barriers from organizational structure is worth the uncertainty in compensation.
It also helps that a few aren't willing to relocate to the USA.
That's a very bold (even arrogant, sorry) statement about 57,000+ (googled it) employees.
So 57,000 are worse devs then you ? This is what i hear from your statement, correct me if I am wrong ..
Many extremely talented people want to work for Google. They will take the tests, even if they don't agree with the hiring system at all .
Maybe they want to work at Google despite its incapability (according to you) in the hiring and testing process.
> it is whether I want to work with the code of people who can pass that interview
Have you found any correlation between poor code and being able to pass Google's interview ?
(edit: new lines)