You won't get the job not because you "didn't worry about the algorithm" but because you didn't ask any questions about the problem; just went straightforward to the implementation. In FAANG interviews that would be a red flag.

This is a myth. It doesn't matter if you ask "questions" but implement an n^2 solution. Unless you implement the optimal solution, usually using a top-down DP or some array trick, you aren't moving forward in the interview process.

In the FAANG interviews I've done you're never allowed to ask questions...? Maybe for clarification of the problem space, but not about the algorithm or the promise of a particular solution.

If I'm the interviewer and you don't ask questions I'm going to rate you very low on your communications skills. You may have the best algorithm in your head and write the most elegant code, but working at a company requires you to communicate your ideas and plans and code and everything else to your team. And no, communicating only at the end (code review time) is not enough. This is not a school assignment that you silently write and then turn in for a grade.

The best interviews I've experienced, both as an interviewer and an interviewee, are the ones that feel like two team members collaborating to narrow down requirements and solve a problem.

> about the algorithm or the promise of a particular solution

It's not about "the" algorithm or "a" solution. It's about you the candidate being able to propose multiple solutions, perhaps with space-time tradeoffs, to provide a recommendation based on your judgement, and to ask the interviewer what they think of your proposal.

I mean, that's great, and I feel the same way. Yet every time—since the introduction of leetcode questions, anyway—as the interviewee I've been asked not to ask questions about the algorithm or the solution, just clarification of the problem space. FWIW I have been employed at several of the FAANGs or whatever they're called now and have also been on the hiring side, where I certainly did not discourage asking questions of any sort.

Facebook interviews were very much interactive with my interviewer probing me on O(n) type questions and me refining it down to be more efficient. I was certainly allowed to answer questions, typically about scale. My code which was on a whiteboard certainly wouldn't compile and a good amount of the discussion was making sure that the interviewer could follow it and that he was satisfied with each of the steps.

My first round I passed with a less than optimally efficient solution, but he was satisfied every step of the way during my work.

While I was lukewarm to the prospect of working for Facebook, the interview process was very positive and reflected very well.

On a personal level, self interest would have me like the leetcode style problems because I can get most of them right on the first try during a timed interview, without studying. If I were pursuing a job at a FAANG, I might actually study them and I'm sure it would go well for the testing portion of the interview.

However, when I interview this is not what I'm looking for. I'm typically looking for someone who knows the particular language that I'm hiring for. My questions run from the very simple to as deep as they can go on either language or implementation details. From the most junior to the most senior, they get the same starting questions and I expect the senior people to go deeper and explain why they choose something over something else. I'm also testing their ability to explain it to me (not just get it right) as that is part of their job working with juniors.

I really don't even care if they have the names of things right and don't really count things wrong against them if they get the names of two things backwards for instance. For example in Go, a huge percent of the time you might use slice over arrays. Some people get the names backwards, but can identify which one they actually use and they know that one can change size. They are correct in usage and misnaming them. I inform them of the name, encourage them a bit and move on.

I've never liked the "look at this code, what's wrong with it" approach. There are too many contexts that I have to jump into at the same time. There is often an expectation that I find a specific problem with it. I'm lacking the usual tools like an IDE or compiler. What level am I looking at in the code? Does it compile? Are there off by one errors? Cache invalidation? Spelling errors? Logic errors? Business errors?

This guy has missing tests on code that needs to be refactored in order to make those tests. Maybe he has it figured out just right, but the "jump into my code" interviews I've been in on all seemed like they had secret gotchas that the interviewer expected specific answers about.

In short, I haven't seen a proper, repeatable process for interviewing for software development.

Well, good to know if that were ever an opportunity for me. Probably would have to invent questions because it's hard to ask yourself out of being dumb-founded on the spot for the moment.

The interview for my current job had something simpler: something like finding random permutations, then what's the algorithmic complexity of this random algorithm. (It was years ago, I forget the details of it.) I just talked through the solution. That was nicer that having to come up with questions. :)

So even if you deliver exactly what they were expecting they are upset that you didn't need to ask any questions to get there?

Yes, because getting to the right answer is not the point of the interview. Apart from anything else, getting to the right answer may mean you memorised it and are incapable of doing anything else. Always show your working and thought process. Asking questions and showing that you understand tradeoffs and that users have different requirements is a good way to do that.

That's what I've heard, yes. Crazy, eh?