You laugh at that coding assignment for a senior position but you'd be surprised how many "senior" people interview that would struggle with that and be unable to complete it.
It's a great way to weed out the junior devs that cheated their way through school (or are too dumb to figure it out via stackoverflow) and the senior devs that haven't actually done any real programming in a long time.
An engineer at our competitor got laid off and my PM found out and hired the guy to do FPGA work. My PM knew the guy through some contracts we had with the competitor and assumed he was an expert in the field. Turns out the guy was more of middleman between program management and the engineers so while he could talk about the work, he hadn't really done it in like 10 years. My PM got the hiring expedited and since we don't really do interview tests in our industry, the guy was now on our team before anyone could ask any pertinent questions.
Long story short, the FPGA team starts assigning him work but it's taking way too long and he's asking for more documentation and for help on things that he definitely would have worked on in his supposed previous job. Eventually we all figure out that he kinda overstated how fresh his skills are and we transition him to a sort of documentation role so he wasn't burning hours on things he just couldn't handle. While he was perfectly capable of doing that kind of work, it involved a lot of insight to our design so it took him a while to get onboarded to the system and able to properly describe the design. Eventually he was doing good work and got the project to the point where he wasn't needed but he left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. We could have hired two junior engineers to do the work he was doing for the same price and probably gotten it done much faster. After the guy transfered over to another project, we reamed out our PM about his hiring decision and begged him to give us some input next time. Of course, due to the waste of money from the last guy, the functional managers stopped taking hiring inputs from our project and would just assign whoever the fuck they thought we needed despite the kind of roles we actually needed.
I am one of those people who just won't exaggerate or lie on my CV or during an interview. I say "i'm not sure, i'd google it the first couple times it came up". I'm not a programmer though. I have a weird skillset that doesn't mesh or gel with what recruiters are looking for, so on the rare occasion i get a recruiter on the phone, i tend to get a job offer at the end of the sequence.
I've had a few startup jobs, a couple megacorp jobs (not Apple), and a handful of mom and pop and defunct business jobs as well.
My least favorite interview questions involve regex or deep internals of BSD or Linux, my favorite interview questions are off the cuff solutions to problems presented, and then backtracking the explanation.
I've also been asked to perform job interviews for positions that i probably ought know enough about to interview a candidate for, but I went off my gut feeling about how the person acted in what i consider a stressful situation (a slew of interviewers asking asinine questions). I don't like interviewing, i am not very good at finding candidates that are "in for the long haul" but every time we were tasked with finding someone who can do X before end of Q3, my hired candidate recommendations always nailed it in that time
frame.
All this is to say, i find the whole process ridiculous. My CV apparently looks like a train wreck. I refuse to wear a tie or get a haircut. I'm eerily relaxed in interview situations.
My trick? one time i hung out with a CEO of an IT company from the PNW, and they basically told me everything i thought i knew was trash, my resume was trash, my attitude was trash, and the only thing i was good at was solving problems in a hurry. We did, in fact, get coffee for our meetup. I scrapped every idea of what a resume should look like - what i envisioned a perfect professional resume looked like - and started fresh. I learned to say no to most recruiters in a way that made them ask me about different "opportunities" more aligned with my personal ethics and values in the future.
I have 4 FPGAs, and i've never done anything with them, because the bitstream is proprietary on all of them. I wouldn't hesitate to tell an interviewer that i am interested in FPGAs and custom ASICs, because i am. I'm also interested in bacteria, but i won't be applying to a bioscience lab anytime soon. I certainly wouldn't say "yeah i can program an FPGA", or C, or do front end development, or any of that.
From my reading of these sorts of comments, in aggregate, most people try to impress the interviewers. I want them to impress me.
I have been developing in embedded systems for 38 years, and I have the shortest skill set you will ever see on a resume. I only put down the things I know.
On the other hand, I have reviewed resumes from people with five years of experience that are 'experts' at twenty five unrelated technologies. As soon as I see that, I think, 'yeah..... no'. I worked with some genius level folk at Bell Labs back in the mid 1990s, ten years into my career, and they were each really good at two or three things. I took note of that. Yes, they could figure other stuff out, they could move on to new technology, updating the three things that they were good at, but that list always seemed to be short.
You have to laugh at 'experienced' or 'expert at' followed by JS, JAVA, Full Stack, Python, Linux, BSD, C#, AWS, C, C++, MySQL, PostGRES, Lisp, Lua, Azure, MathCAD, DSP, AI, Excel, SystemC, Perl, regex, Bash, git, assembly, Verilog, ...
Pretty much. I hold the record for our coding question in my company - 3 minutes and 54 seconds. Granted, I'm one of the two people that put the question together, but still.
We've had candidates with "20 years of experience" completely unable to do what amounts to "call a web service, deserialize some json, write a couple for loops and if statements, and post back some json to a web service" in over an hour, or in a take home scenario.
It will never cease to amaze me that there are people employed in this field that just. can. not. program.
To be fair: it might be they have never done this before.
At my previous company, we had a technical assessment - this was about ten years ago now. It boiled down to: read XML, do some math / business logic, and build a REST API to do so.
Interestingly, ten years ago, at least half the applicants said they found it interesting because they had never worked with REST or JSON before. A lot were Java developers, so the XML part wasn't a problem, and they would often add some SQL database as a bonus.
But 5-10 years later, as development switched to (Node)JS and web, it became the inverse and people said they had never done anything with XML before.
And far more likely: done before, but never on anything even remotely close to a blank slate. You can spend years doing X, be very good at doing X, but only ever adapt some pre-existing precedent implementation of doing X to a new use case, or to a new underlying library, but never any green-fielding. That "implement X in a vacuum" test will rate many experienced people lower than some who have never ventured beyond textbook examples. It's not impossible that your real tasks have so much green field work in them that those experienced brown-fielders might actually be bad matches, but I suspect that those situations are much less common than the tests that select for green-fielders.
No doubt when GP refused to complete the coding assessment the people who designed it thought “aha! Yet another non-coder filtered out by our process!”
I'm currently doing interviews for a senior firmware dev position and was stunned by this. Today I talked to a guy who couldn't tell me what an interrupt was in any technical detail. His coding was worse than a first year college students. 5 of the 6 people I've talked to so far bombed the coding portion.
This isn't intended as a rebuttal, but I've learned to stay away from deeply technical questions in embedded. As long as the interviewee is sufficiently paranoid about C, is recognizably experienced via conversation, and knows the basic concepts I don't press too hard on their specific skillset.
There are just too many niches where the knowledge we each consider necessary simply isn't. I had one particularly bad interviewer grill me on how the ARM GIC worked in detail (e.g. interconnect details, differences between versions, etc) because they considered it basic knowledge. I've personally never needed to know anything about it that wasn't in a TRM.
I agree. Why memorize something that is well documented? Do you understand basic interrupt management and the existence of interrupt controllers? Good. Understanding basic concepts matter, but silicon implementations of a concept? No.
One question I have found useful in embedded development is asking someone to discuss the difference between a thread and a process, and the difference between thread based OSs and process based OSs. It is a general question, not bound by anything like CPU architecture, but just gives an idea into whether the person is comfortable about general memory domains.
I have mentored people, bright programmers that never worked in small embedded systems, that initially tripped all over the thread model, but eventually came to understand it.
Im pretty new to interviewing so I appreciate the feedback. I think I'm dong OK with respect to that but I'll make sure not to assume my own expertise are trivial.
I have a different perspective. I feel that specific coding task tells me absolutely nothing about the seniority of the person performing the task and tells me very little about their qualifications.
Making direct comparisons of software to trades generally needs to stop. I understand that it's merely an analogy, but it's not a good one. Nails are extremely well understood with little room for improvement while the smallest piece of software is not so well understood and has infinite room for improvement. There are a handful of traits about an engineer that can make them incredibly valuable to an org that you'll never measure by putting the most weight on their ability to balance a binary tree (to use the cliched example).
This sub-thread was talking about "that specific coding task", not about binary tasks [edit: trees] in general. You might be very valuable building, say, a database application, while not being able to balance a binary tree, but if you can't do whatever we can all come up with as a small coding assessment ("little deck of cards"). It sounds to me like a good first filter, plus then a good talking piece to have a conversation about in an in-person.
Ya, my bad (and also to your sibling comment), I have trouble with HN comment depth sometimes.
Although I experienced recently what you said exactly! I was asked to build a deck of cards for the screening interview. It was a fun back-and-forth and I felt really good about things. Then in the next steps, I was asked to implement Conway's Game of Life. So like, I've been programming professionally for 13 years, I'm well aware of GoL and maybe should know how to do it, but I've never bothered since there are just a mountain of other projects, programming and not, that interest me over that. It's all good if you want your engineers to be able to solve that type of problem as it's your company and you do what you like with it. But like, they were an e-comm company and I have a ton of e-comm experience and was actually pretty into what they were doing, so why were they using something like GoL to assess me?
On the flip side of things to get a little tangential, I often feel companies reject me because they just don't like me, and I wish they would just say as much since that hurts way less than being told I'm a not a great engineer, lol.
Anyway, maybe a bit too much TMI... interviewing right now is a bit of a shitshow with all the recent layoffs and I'm maybe a little bitter, but also realllllly enjoying unemployment while it lasts.
Did they tell you to implement “Conway's Game of Life” in that many words, or they gave you the rules they wanted to implement?
If the first, that sounds like a terrible question. If the second, that sounds like a quite straightforward fizbuz style coding task.
> I'm well aware of GoL and maybe should know how to do it
What do you mean “should know how to do it”? I don’t think you should have memorised the rules, or an implementation. But I think if you are a software developer you should be able to turn human language into code. That is a key skill of the job.
Recruiters and subsequently hiring teams are often told they can't give much actual feedback to candidates, out of a fear for legal challenges. I cannot assess the validity of these fears, just relaying what I heard. I guess folks have been burned when their presumably-good faith attempts at feedback were twisted into inclusion and equal opportunity cases (which are also important subjects that I don't want to dismiss either).
That's why the programming tasks are simple. FizzBuzz, or "implement a deck of cards."
Sure there are different ways to do this but it's a small enough task that the quality of the solution is easy to judge.
I think the nail analogy works. If a blacksmith can't make a decent nail he shouldn't be hired. Same if a developer can't use one of a few very well-known standard library data structures to implement a deck of cards.
>I understand that it's merely an analogy, but it's not a good one.
Are there any good ones?
I find that people introduce an analogy...it is discussed, another 'contradictory' analogy is introduced....and eventually someone has 'won' the argument referring to something completely unrelated, and thereby have 'won' the original argument, by default.
My boss is particularly good at his :-) To me, its a form of gaslighting.
As soon as i hear "But what if...?", or "it's as if...", I refuse to budge, and simply ask "Are we talking about 'the original subject', or 'Blacksmiths'?
If it's the latter, let's talk about Japanese swordsmanship first, then the history of European metallurgy first - just to be on the same page."
Often used at the same time is the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Set ridiculous boundaries on the analogy, ignore the fallacies, and the original subject soon gets re-discussed. It's amazing how many people actualy find that uncomfortable.
The premise is that someone capable can blast through trivial assignments in no time. Either this is the final proficiency challenge or there are subsequent, harder questions. In the former case, why not see the salary/offer and then decide?
Typically, because one has other opportunities that are no less compelling and where potential employers show respect for candidates' time.
I have a GitHub profile with a lot of code on it and on my resume I highlight projects I've done a lot of work on. "What if faked tho?"--there's literally too much there to be worth faking. If a hiring manager looks at my resume, has the option of going to my GitHub profile, and between the two goes "I'm going to hand him a college-level Java problem because I'm not sure," then there probably isn't a way we're going to work together. And that's okay, on both sides of it; there are a lot of developers who aren't bothered by that kind of low-trust relationship. I am. Not a fit.
(This is in contrast to, for example, asking a question like that during an interview. Interviews are bidirectional, and are showing an investment in the hiring process on the part of the employer. If a card-deck Java problem is worth addressing with my time, then it's worth addressing with your interviewer's time. The contrapositive is also true.)
Personally, I only ever ask people to solve coding/problem-solving questions live. The best experience IMO is when we talk through the problem together, since this approximates what collaborating with this person on real tasks will be like - not very well at all, but about as well as one can do in the amount of time available for a live interview.
However, I do understand where the offline exercise idea comes from - it's not necessarily about lack of respect for candidates' time, but is generally done with the best of intentions in response to feedback, because candidates complain that the interview technical exercise scenario is needlessly artificial: in a live interview candidates do not usually have easy access to their usual tools or Google/Stackoverflow, and many feel pressure and panic from having to code/problemsolve live while someone is watching and feel they would do better if left alone to do the same thing for the same length of time.
Given the incredibly strong feelings either way, perhaps it might not be a terrible idea to let people choose which approach they prefer; but I've never seen any company's hiring do that, though, thinking about it, there really is no good reason why not (provided I still get to talk through the results of the offline exercise with the candidate during the live bit!)
I think this is a good analysis of where the offline idea started from, but in my experience the majority of interviewers who want you to do a "take home" thing are asking you to sign up for a multiple-hour mess of a project. That's where the lack of respect comes from, and the lack of acknowledgment of the market--most people you want to hire are already employed, after all, and time pressure from life is a thing.
Making it an option for somebody who would rather wouldn't be bad, but yeah, as you say, nobody's learning a lot about the other people that way, and they're probably more important.
(The OP's card deck problem is just faintly ridiculous and a bad allocation of the candidate's time, and I assume there are more hoops to jump through afterwards.)
> If a hiring manager looks at my resume, has the option of going to my GitHub profile, and between the two goes "I'm going to hand him a college-level Java problem because I'm not sure,"
I know we're talking hypotheticals. I get your position 100%, and good for you.
My view is that I'd tell you that
1. I've seen your Github profile
2. However, I didn't have time to go through your entire Github profile looking at your efficiency and productivity. I want to do a quick, ad-hoc programming exercise to see how fast you operate on basic tasks (which #1 doesn't readily address). I expect you to crush it really fast and this is the only coding exercise I'll have you do.
To me, that doesn't seem unreasonable if I'm upfront about expectations. Your response will also say a lot about you (not necessarily negative, but for fit).
These requirements come up because someone always slips through diligence. While you might be getting punished, interviewers are trying to de-risk candidates as much (and as fast) as possible.
> I want to do a quick, ad-hoc programming exercise to see how fast you operate on basic tasks (which #1 doesn't readily address).
Right. And to do so in good faith, this absolutely can and should be a collaborative exercise with an interviewer. It demonstrates that the employer has skin in the game and isn't body-shopping. Once you're out of junior/low-mid hiring, this is really, really important to getting quality candidates to go through your funnel.
> interviewers are trying to de-risk candidates as much (and as fast) as possible.
Of course they are. They should also be aware of the tradeoffs in doing so.
Now if we could just standardise this so you didn't have to do several coding assignments for every position you apply for. I'm sure most people needs to apply to more than one company to actually get hired, especially with all the layoffs now.
And very low ability to do any improvisation.
Without specifying every detail of implementation task will not be completed.
Even in areas that don't require very specific solutions, and need to just work.
Ya, most people who have been in the game for a year ask for "senior" position. I'm pretty sure this is why there is "staff" now. Well, I'm not sure how long "staff" has been a thing as I've never worked at a company that has that title, just interviewed for them (nb: I interviewed for "senior" positions at said companies).
There was a blog post on HN a few days ago by someone who taught himself programming during covid and landed senior roles (multiple, simultaneously, by lying to the employers).
