> A fizzbuzz with fewer false-positive rejections might be something like "implement multiplication without using the multiplication operator".
While possibly a fair question, this is a whole order of magnitude more difficult than FizzBuzz. It requires more domain knowledge as well (lots of people have forgotten how to multiply).
> Allows the quality candidates lots of room to shine.
But this is precisely the opposite of FizzBuzz. The goal is to weed out horrible candidates, not identify great ones.
Sorry, in my mind the input was restricted to positive integers. My fault for not making that clear.
def mul(a, b):
accum = 0
while b > 0:
accum = accum + a
b -= 1
return accum
> But this is precisely the opposite of FizzBuzz. The goal is to weed out horrible candidates, not identify great ones.
This accomplishes both at once. That's a super set, not an opposite.
Granted, that may be counter to the spirit of the question, but it's a valid answer lol
I'll give an easy question, but I'll have them do it ssh'd on to a remote machine. I'm more interested if they know how the environment works and how much coaching they need to navigate around.
Weeellll, I mean it doesn't totally succeed in meeting that design criteria. Fizzbuzz weeds out three kinds of candidates:
I fault fizzbuzz a bit, because there are candidates in that last category who have several years of experience successfully duct-taping together libraries to meet product requirements, yet panic because they've never had to find the remainder of division in their language of choice. They might be fine for the rec you have open.A fizzbuzz with fewer false-positive rejections might be something like "implement multiplication without using the multiplication operator".
edit: Oooh! "How many ways can you implement multiplication" would be a much more interesting warm-up/weed-out question! Allows the quality candidates lots of room to shine.