Re:In defense of coding interviews
by vkou on Sunday May 29, 2022 @03:22AM
(#31547160)
If you can't give me the o(n) performance of the algorithm that you just wrote, this is a pretty serious red flag about your ability to understand what you are writing.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:In defense of coding interviews
by krainboltgreene on Sunday May 29, 2022 @04:45AM
(#31547544)
I'm going to blow your mind but a ton of important software was written by people who have a hard time explaining these things.
Re:In defense of coding interviews
by mikebenfield on Sunday May 29, 2022 @11:07AM
(#31549714)
Also a ton of important software was written as a giant mess of spaghetti code, or with horrible security vulnerabilities.
Re:In defense of coding interviews
by krainboltgreene on Monday May 30, 2022 @08:56PM
(#31565145)
I've never been tested on my ability to not write spaghetti code or write security vulnerabilities in my 15 years doing many many interviews.
Unless you're suggesting that knowing the performance of a loop helps with that?
Re:In defense of coding interviews
by mikebenfield on Tuesday May 31, 2022 @10:27PM
(#31577370)
What I'm suggesting is that "Important software has been written by people who couldn't/didn't do X" is not a very strong indication that X is not a valuable quality that employers should want in their engineers.
Except for the fact that using foreach instead of for has no impact on your O(n) performance.
What would you do if a candidate said with a smile "I'm pretty sure it is O(n!)"?
Parent commenter asked for little o, not for big O. So to be safe, better say n^o(n^2).
Re:In defense of coding interviews
by robertlagrant on Sunday May 29, 2022 @02:08PM
(#31551292)
Hah this is the best comment.