Egocentric flame war tech interviews
-
Because Jeff doesn't believe in quoting
Anyway, because Jeff doesn't like quoting
@codinghorror said:
I'm a tool.
Take that, Jeffrey.
-
@presidentsdaughter: said:
I wouldn't hire anyone who wouldn't spit O(log n) for the common case of binary tree operations.
Why? I haven't been able to spit the O of most anything off the top of my head in years. That doesn't make me a worse developer.
That. I stumbled/bumbled my way thru O notation in the interview for my current position. (what the hell is log again?) But it was my skill of everything else that had them offering me the position almost immediately. (and reasoning out what it is - yeah, that's constant time)
-
Anyway, because Jeff doesn't like quoting, it's broken by design.
Fits right in then...
-
You can have the best of both worlds:
int sum( const Tree& tree ) {
return &tree == NULL ? 0 : tree.val() + sum(*tree.left()) + sum(*tree.right());
}Filed under: Don't do this. For real.
My coworker just pointed to a place in our code base that does exactly
if (&tree == NULL)that. (Please let it just be very stupid refactoring of a function that once took a pointer...)
-
Because Jeff doesn't believe in quoting the post to which you are replying; you're supposed to click the little arrows to expand or jump to the post to get the context. Except when it doesn't give you the arrow. Because your shoulder aliens are supposed to tell you whether the post is a reply to the one immediately above it, or the OP in the topic; in its default configuration, Discourse won't tell you.
Anyway, because Jeff doesn't like quoting, it's broken by design.
@codinghorrorbot what do you think?
-
@powerlord Is Doing It Wrong™<t3699p157>
-
Anyway, because Jeff doesn't like quoting, it's broken by design.
Except the arrow thing is broken too. Half the time it shoots me down into the "Suggested Topics" list instead of showing me the post that the one I clicked is replying too.
-
I haven't noticed that, but I rarely use that. Expand, yes, but rarely the goto.
-
what the hell is log again?
It's what you get when you cut down a binary tree.
(Seriously, it's a generalisation of the idea of counting the number of digits in a number. It's also the inverse of an exponential. And the link to a binary tree? It's the cost of finding a node, provided the tree is balanced and you're using log2 of course…)
-
you're using log2 of course
Logarithm to a different base is just multiplication by a constant — log10 ≈ 0.301 log2 and ln ≈ 0.693 log2 — so the cost is still proportional to log(n), no matter what base you use.
-
Rise of the Rude Hiring Manager
As it says: "It's not you. It's them."
-
Rise of the Rude Hiring Manager
To view this discussion, join the group.###Group Profile
Private group. To request membership, click Join and your request will be reviewed by the group manager.
-
Well, that's just RUDE.
Direct link here.
-
Apparently I have a draft I never sent... oh well...
No JS programmer ever needs to understand how to structure data...
As a frontend developer, I'd rather know how to structure data (what with all these new-fangled SPAs and whatnot), but I haven't seen many good reasons to implement a binary tree on the frontend (beyond the odd technical test). I certainly wouldn't know the value of O, or any of the finer details.
Rise of the Rude Hiring Manager (with direct link)
As it says: "It's not you. It's them."
I would suspect this inconsiderate behaviour directly correlates with the mean/median ratio of US salaries over time.
I have no data to back that up. It's just a suspicion.
-
That was a good read. It reminds me of this local social network I'm always getting recruiting emails from but that I ever will interview with them because of their hiring process: five levels of interviews, technical tests and no benefits information until the hiring process ends.
-
So, some months have passed since I had this interview and I still receive this position every week by LinkedIn. Does seem like the premise of my post that their interview process is broken was right all along.
-
I remember seeing this one job show up every few months on a particular job forum literally for years.
-
Guess what. Today I had another technical interview. And what was I asked about? Another BST!
-
-
Bitchin' Solo on the Trombone. It was a technical interview for a marching band.
-
Funny you mention that since I remember certain rat ranting about this too.
OMG WHAT IS A BST PEOPLE!!?!!!??? COMMUNICATE!!!
Or maybe it was about my use of PL... Discosearch is a barrier to sanity
-
-
-
FTFY @blakeyrat isn't real, but a persona.
Now you made me think of a Firefox color scheme named blakeyrat. Brrr.
-
-
Binary Space
PTartition?
-
Bickering Sick Toad.
Seriously, though, a quick google and scan of this thread and I still have no idea.
-
The OP talks about a binary tree. So BST === Binary Search Tree maybe?
-
What, to me, the relevant part of the question would be is that given some datastructure in the code base, you are constantly aware of the performance characteristics of the structure, so you can make an informed decision on how to do something.
I can certainly understand asking to make a binary tree as a quick refresher to have the interview candidate in the datastructures mindset - and even don't mind if they mess it up, as long as they know the performance characteristics once they have one in hand.
Especially for a senior position where you will be more likely to spend time deciding on what the architecture will look like, I would want to make sure that the candidate would be able to make an informed call.
And sometimes, part of an interview is to learn where someones limitations may lie. Even if datastructures isn't their strong suit, the candidate may be suitable for the position, but it's still important to know that the candidate has limitations on that subject.
So the candidate went ahead and "failed" datastructres. Fine, they can make up for that. The candidate proceeds to make up for it by becoming frustrated with the interviewer, and resolves that frustration by anger and hostility. That is the point where I would not want that person on the team.
