Hacker News Reader

Comment by hughesjj | Hacker News Reader

Leetcode was created in part to be more equitable and objective.

Before leetcode, we had people asking puzzles which had nothing to do with your coding abilities, like "How many balls could fit on a Boeing 747" or "If you have 9 balls, a see-saw, and one ball weighs more/less than the others, what is the minimum number of weighings to find said ball".

Alma matter also used to matter a bunch more, and non-traditional schooling devs were much harder to come by.

Leetcode isn't perfect, but it's better than what we had before. That said, I don't think it's the "final form" or optimal template for interviewing. What I would love to see are more constructive suggestions for objectively evaluating candidates that don't devolve into things easily bullshitable or biased.

I don't think the certificate days would be much use today, given how fast frameworks change and just how many different technologies are involved with modern development.

View on HN

> Before leetcode, we had people asking puzzles which had nothing to do with your coding abilities

This is also the problem with Leetcode: it often doesn't test 'can you code' but 'have you learnt this trick'.

How many times have you been asked to solve a leetcode-like problem at work? Ever?

How many times have you been asked to solve fizzbuzz at work? ;-)

And yet you can probably fluently juggle for loops and if statements to your heart's content; and can figure ways to bend them to your will (and to the problems at hand).

Similar goes for algorithms (the things leetcode questions ask about.) You'll probably never encounter the exact toy problems that get asked in an interview. The real world is always messy, you you need to be creative and imaginative. Knowing algorithms helps with that because you've already practiced, and have a head start in knowing what works and what not.

Me personally, all the time.

In fact, I am taking a short break from a problem that reduces to graph coloring with 2 colors. [1] If you interview with our team we will absolutely ask LC style algorithmic problems because one will definitely use that knowledge with us, a lot.

The problem is not LC style interviews per se. The problem is not enough companies tailoring their interview to the role they're trying to fill.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_coloring

>> I don't think the certificate days would be much use today,

Think again.

>> given how fast frameworks change and just how many different technologies are involved with modern development.

That is not a problem.

There could be theoretical and applied certifications.

The theoretical certifications would be "one and done" (take the test once, and you are, for example a "Level 3 Software Architect). Theoretical certifications would be based on fundamental (fungible) abilities.

But yeah, if you had been a certified Level 5 Java software engineer, and then Java became eclipsed by "the new hot language" then you'd need to get certified in the new hot language to claim, "I'm a Level 2 New Hot Language engineer."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com