Hi there, thanks for reading my comment and replying. I don’t know why what I wrote has made you so angry, but I am not trying to insult you or anyone. I might be unintentionally saying things in a style that’s bugging you, I apologize for that, but my intent is to offer some insights about what’s important to an interviewer when interviewing for a job. Younger coders seem to believe that technical ability should be the only criteria, and it’s not the only criteria. Please contrast my generic statements not directed at you, statements that might be accidentally making you mad, with your many personal insults directed at me. I don’t particularly appreciate it, but in the end it’s only reflecting poorly on you, not on me. If someone who was interviewing you read your comment, do you think they’d want to hire you more?
I can see that you’re frustrated by interviews. Why don’t you tell me more about your experience and what about interviews isn’t working for you? You said you’ve never gone long in between jobs, so why are interviews bothering you so much? If you’re just commenting on the awful game, why are you taking it personally and insulting me?
You took much offense to my explanation of algorithm questions without acknowledging that I agreed with the GP comment that many companies might be doing it for the wrong reasons. Still, that doesn’t make it a good idea to just speculate on the reasons companies use algorithms questions. Just because you feel like they’re pointless and interviewers are trying to feel smart doesn’t mean it’s true. Jumping to a negative conclusion isn’t the best idea, even if you’re right.
The person who’s criteria matters for loving programming is you.
> Younger coders seem to believe that technical ability should be the only criteria, and it’s not the only criteria.
You're the one defending rote tests (that literally only test for technical knowledge), not me nor anyone who replied to you (as far as I read).
From my previous comment:
>> You might have half point if you were saying that you discuss someone's portfolio during the interview (which would be analogous with the new hire discussing the code with the rest of the team to better gauge the decisions made), but you've said that you dismiss it and instead defend tests.
I value discussion, that's ultimately one of the things that matters most for a developer. And, mind you, thanks to git platforms (GitLab, GitHub, etc.) this is also becoming more transparent in portfolios, like by looking at how the candidate handles merge/pull requests and issues.
> your many personal insults directed at me.
Could you quote which sentences in my previous comment were personal insults? I'd like to know where I phrased myself poorly and apologize and/or explain my intent.
> If someone who was interviewing you read your comment, do you think they’d want to hire you more?
If someone who was interviewing me disagreed with any of my points, I guess not. Then again, I wouldn't want to work in such a company either; making it a win win situation.
I fail to see how this sentence is apropos anyway, HN isn't a job board.
> You said you’ve never gone long in between jobs, so why are interviews bothering you so much?
That's all but spelled out in the article and most of the comments, but I'll share my experience explicitly: I am yet to have a job, that used those leetcode type tests or generic coding challenges as part of the hiring process, where I needed to use the knowledge required for the tests or the challenges in the actual job.
It's a gigantic waste of time, testing for all the wrong things.
> Just because you feel like they’re pointless and interviewers are trying to feel smart doesn’t mean it’s true.
I'm yet to find a counterexample in any job I've had. You seem to be mistaking your own experience (assuming you actually do those tests for the "right" reasons) as the norm. Though I guess all of us are a little bit at fault of that.
> Jumping to a negative conclusion isn’t the best idea, even if you’re right.
You are the one who told someone else to stop complaining and even made another not-apropos comment about how complaining is a red flag. There's no way to interpret that other than negatively. If there is, I would love to read what you meant by that.
> The person who’s criteria matters for loving programming is you.
Alas, evidently it doesn't, because even hiring managers/interviewers/recruiters who comment in HN posts about the awful state in hiring for software engineers think that rote algorithm tests are of utmost importance, and I don't particularly agree.
I can see that you’re frustrated by interviews. Why don’t you tell me more about your experience and what about interviews isn’t working for you? You said you’ve never gone long in between jobs, so why are interviews bothering you so much? If you’re just commenting on the awful game, why are you taking it personally and insulting me?
You took much offense to my explanation of algorithm questions without acknowledging that I agreed with the GP comment that many companies might be doing it for the wrong reasons. Still, that doesn’t make it a good idea to just speculate on the reasons companies use algorithms questions. Just because you feel like they’re pointless and interviewers are trying to feel smart doesn’t mean it’s true. Jumping to a negative conclusion isn’t the best idea, even if you’re right.
The person who’s criteria matters for loving programming is you.