I'm seeing this comment as a result of this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/programmingcirclejerk/comments/ydiu...

But overall I agree with you. While I don't have the results to back it up, I do believe that ultimately Leetcode isn't that useful outside of recruiting people straight out of college. Otherwise, I think there are more domain specific methods to assess candidate fitness to a role.

Also, my giving my unsolicited opinion, I do agree with one of the Reddit posters saying that you are currently on your way to burnout. While I can sympathize with you being super interested in learning programming all the time (because it is very interesting!) be sure to not ignore your other needs, and also to take a mandatory break at least one day a week. Speaking from experience, if you don't do this you will burn out and you will have to pick up the pieces.

Well, I have been doing this for over 30 years, and going at my current pace for probably ten years (I noticed the comment about me being an enthusiastic youngster. That was cute).

But I also take breaks (and naps) whenever I want. No one wants to hire old folks, so I don’t work for anyone. I do this, because I want to.

What’s that saying? “It’s not work, if you love what you do?” For me, coding (designing solutions, in particular) is relaxing. I have some fairly serious family and extracurricular obligations that bring their own stressors. Coding is how I get away.

I’ll tell you when I was actually in danger of burning out; it was when I was a manager (which I did for 25 years). I spent a hell of a lot of time, sitting on my ass. I coded on the side, so I wouldn’t burn out. This is like Disneyland, compared to that horrible grind.

I share this position fully, but we need to consider the benefit of a standardized test despite its flaws. Other paths to success need to exist (e.g., university admissions take people on other merits besides SAT and similar) but it can be more difficult to assess the validity of any claims regarding level of experience without a well-known certificate.

When a job doesn't focus on what LC asserts, and I think we'd agree about how huge that segment is, then naturally it should be a small or non-existent consideration.

I have no problem with licensing, depending on the job.

Some stuff should definitely have a steady hand on the tiller, other jobs, not so much.

But the thought of licensing software engineers is daunting. The industry is so incredibly varied.

For example, almost none of the programming I do, involves higher math. I've pretty much forgotten all my calculus, while other jobs are almost nothing but math.

I could be writing crucial, lifesaving device control stuff, and the math person could be working on a game physics engine.

I am in awe of game programmers, but they also work on "nice to have" stuff. I know someone that writes software for medical devices. He is not a "math person," but he's also very dependable, and can be relied upon to Get The Job Done. He has many years of working on things like USB drivers, firmware, Bluetooth, and networking layers.

So, if the “licensing test” insisted on a good command of advanced math (because “everyone should know it” –the same argument given for LC), neither he, nor I, would make it, so the company would be deprived of some very good, dependable, disciplined, and talented engineers, fully capable of writing highly effective asynchronous device control code, and would, instead, prefer an inexperienced math programmer that would try to rewrite the project in haskell.