I hate it when interviewer is an asshole. Somehow in my experience companies that have 'Leetcode' or that kind of thing in process have interviewer that is an asshole.

If someone thinks he is better than me just because he is in a position to ask questions, well that leaves me frustrated for the rest of the day after interview.

It is specially frustrating when you already have the experience, I am now almost 10 years and a senior dev and I cannot really put up with it.

When I was a junior trying to find any job I was not offended at all, but I still remember all bad interviews.

However, in my experience, most interviewers are not like that. But even one bad interviewer leaves a really foul taste.

Context: I do conduct a fair amount of technical interviews and it can be quite awkward to be in front of an engineer with arguably more experience but that struggles to write a correct solution to a relatively simple problem.

They could keep it to themselves and go back to their colleagues and nag about "what a waste of time, that guy was".

I am also interviewing people from time to time, but I see it as part of my job not some kind of punishment. So maybe don't push technical colleagues, who are not happy about it, to do it.

Well this means you dodged a bullet early :) It's better they wasted your time for the interview (couple hours or days of preparing?) than months or years of your time working there.

They don't know me and besides my CV they have to see that I can write code or see that I can use a computer. I can invest up to 2h into some task if I am switching jobs and offer/company is interesting for me.

For some specialistic roles I don't mind questions about specific technologies, just keep in mind that for example "Web Development" spans so many topics that we might have vastly different experience and questions that you ask or the way you ask them might not connect to my experience.

That is why it should be more of a discussion to try to find out common understanding than grill:quizz, shooting question and 0.5s answer.

But fizzbuzz is truly the lowest of the low bars you can pass. You could even do it in a language you have never ever written before.

On top of prematurely optimising code that executes once in a blue moon and creating an unnecessary maintenance burden, they also lacked any skill in designing codebases whatsoever, and generally pick the worst solution for a problem (which is sometimes detrimental to performance overall, even if the "local implemenation" is great) Most of my refactoring nightmare situations were caused by leetcoders.

Maybw it's just anecdotal, but in my experience there's been a strong correlation.

Also an aside: they tend to be quite a bit snobby/circlejerky and vastly overestimate their skills. IMO, leetcoding is a skill but not the most important one. And also, once you start approaching software as design/engineering, the leetcode will start coming gradually and naturally to you.

You didn't study CS in school?

> It's extremely useful for your development as a programmer.

Can you give some concrete example?

Anecdotally, many programmers I know didn't.

Also 'CS' has grown into a huge and varied field that can include everything from highly abstract mathematics to cognitive behavior and human psychology. If you want to it is absolutely possible to get through an entire CS curriculum without doing much actual practical programming.

Quite an entitled comment. Studying CS in school doesn't mean you've learned everything there is while practicing programming. Yes, you learn these skills on the job, but doing programming interview questions helped me learn skills too.

The point of any CS curriculum is just that, providing you with a framework (which should ideally be a balance of theoretical and practical knowledge). It doesn't teach you the job. Neither do leetcode questions.

I'd rather learn interview algorithms from books. And by getting feedback from trusted peers.