Oy vey. I didn't mean passion in the "I'll work 80 hours a week for little pay mister!" kind of way. I mispoke. I meant that before, if you based your interview process off data structures and algorithms, you'd get competent professionals who just happened to be good at algorithms. While now you'll get a bunch of people who have specifically trained to be good at algorithms. Which has no bearing on competence.

Why can't people who study to get good at algorithms also study to write better code? They've already demonstrated their aptitude for learning difficult things.

For one, interviewing requires extremely short term knowledge. Almost everybody I know who plays the interviewing game learns just enough to pass the interviews, then immediately forgets it until the next time. So it's not really comparable to learning and refining a difficult topic over the course of a few years, as in the case of software development practices.

Also, it's two completely different skillsets! There's something very weird about interviewing for X but then demanding Y. I don't ask my primary care physician how good he is at surgery, then be like "he knows how to learn difficult tasks, so we're good".

> Almost everybody I know who plays the interviewing game learns just enough to pass the interviews, then immediately forgets it until the next time

Presumably the first time they learned computer science fundamentals it took them some time right? People usually go to college for several years to learn this stuff - or 6-month bootcamps for 40-60 hours/week. Subsequently of course it'll take less time to refresh their knowledge.

> Also, it's two completely different skillsets! There's something very weird about interviewing for X but then demanding Y

I'm not disagreeing here. I just think most companies that use this interviewing style figure that X (easy to measure in 45-minute interviews) is a reasonable proxy for Y (much harder to measure). And Y (writing good code) is easier to train new employees to do as long as current employees maintain standards in code reviews.

Maybe they can, but why would they? Algorithms interviews are the only thing with an actual bearing on their future earnings.

> Maybe they can, but why would they?

Professional pride? Wanting to get better?

> Algorithms interviews are the only thing with an actual bearing on their future earnings.

Do they not want promotions or pay increases at their current jobs before leaving? Usually you have to do good quality work to get promoted.

Please read my original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20727948. People who lack these skills can learn after getting hired. Any software company worth working at has a code review and design review process.

Most programming is not solving tricky puzzles, but grinding out code.

> most programming is not solving tricky puzzles, but grinding out code.

Sounds like most jobs need dispassionate guns-for-hire who'll do excellent work, no matter how tedious, get paid, and go home. In other words: pros.