Same here. I’m blue collar so I only do it at work if someone fucks up and gives me access to an interpreter. Or I suck it up and use powershell or excel then drink vodka and cut myself when I get home.
You can tell this is fake because the code interview actually tests basic knowledge instead of giving you 13 minutes to create a templated polymorphic class which accepts arbitrary flatbuffer arguments and implements factory pattern constructors written in Haskell, with the end goal of recursively sorting nanoparticles by bond strength. Intro level position, $8/hr, must supply your own MacBook.
Maybe next time, though, OP should read what OP posts before OO writes a title, as the content has nothing to do with PHP, its all sorts of languages (none of which PHP) and mostly javascript.
The content is pretty on point in general though, I’ve had the unfortunate luck of having dozens of developer candidates like that.
And oohh yeah, PHP sucks because everyone else says so and a blog post of 20 years ago said so too? That literally was the last argument I heard against PHP.
And that’s why we’re moving away from coding games where I work. Bad people try to cheat, good people can panic and shit the bed.
When I do interviews, I’m more interested in the candidate’s relevant experience, what kind of issues they faced, how they were solved, if they think they could have done things differently, and how they think. Code itself is irrelevant unless I can review a sprint’s worth of PRs.
When I ask more technical questions, I never ask for code but for an explanation on how they would tackle the problem. For example, I often ask about finding a simple solution to get all data relevant to a certain date in two, simple, historized tables. If you know window functions, it’s trivial. If you don’t, your solution will be slow and dirty and painful. But as most devs don’t know about window functions anyway, it lets me see how they approach the issue and if they understand what parts should have a trivial solution to make it simple.
This is why I prefer live interviews. I tell them they can use whatever tools they want, search for anything they want, there are no restrictions. All I ask is that they share their entire screen (if not in person) and try to “think out loud” as much as possible. I then time-box each step (usually 15m ea in a 1-hour interview).
I am most interested in HOW they solve the challenges I set out for them. Whether they complete it or not is usually irrelevant.
Edit: Lately, though - I warn against AI. I don’t ban it, but every person that has tried to use AI in an interview has gone down in flames. AI simply cannot be trusted… and if you haven’t learned that lesson, and you can’t even tell when it’s giving you bad information… yikes.
I use ChatGPT sometimes to give me a pointer in what directions I could go/research more for a given problem. But if I ever take the code provided by it, I need to review it line by line and half the time it doesn’t even compile anyway. At this point it’s just a helper to suggest to me what to google for and then I do the rest😅
Oh geez, I’m one of those people who can’t code on paper. I was applying for something ages ago and I went in for a programming test and they handed me a paper test and my mind completely shut down. Put me in front a computer and I have no issues at all… It was embarrassing.
Even the odd numbers stuff? I think interviewers account for nerves and being outside an IDE. You might draw a blank but would you be would be randomly adding things like these did?
No this was just crazy, I have worked with people like that though where stackoverflow was permanently on a second monitor, and I wondered how they made it through the interview process
for some reason I still needed to know programming on paper so much so that at the university, in class prgramming we had to do the exam on paper. every time. no matter if it was Java or C++…
I strangely enjoyed it, but it still was kinda weird.
In university I written on papers programs in pure C. They did compile. They even worked. But they were school olympiad-level, so it doesn’t count I guess.
I would just write down the steps I would take, just some psudocode. It doesn’t have to work, it just has to make sense in the style of the language you’re talking about.
<span style="color:#323232;">import random library
</span><span style="color:#323232;">import any GUI/display libraries required for the outcome desired
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span><span style="color:#323232;">build array of integers [1..52] (or 0..51 if you're being fancy)
</span><span style="color:#323232;">for loop 1..1000
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> select random number A 1..52 (or 0..51 if you used that above)
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> select random number B 1..52 (or 0..51 if you used that above)
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> swap elements in the array A and B
</span><span style="color:#323232;">pop first two elements from array
</span><span style="color:#323232;">decode at display time what the two numbers represent in terms of playing cards
</span>
If the test requires more than that, then they’re crazy. The syntax doesn’t matter, just that you can logic yourself through the problem.
You can use the IDE, google, or whatever to fill in the specifics. If you wanted me to do that in literally any programming language, once the psudocode is done, you just spend an hour or so looking up the details.
If you wanted me to do that in literally any programming language, once the psudocode is done, you just spend an hour or so looking up the details.
In some cases, you can even use an AI chatbot as a “pseudocode compiler”. Just tell it to translate your pseudocode to an actual language. I’ve done it for shell scripts a couple of times, works surprisingly well. Not that I would do this at a job interview haha.
The previous candidate to me at a job a few years ago left the room in tears after not being able to write Fizzbuzz. On a laptop with Visual Studio installed, on their own in a an empty room with nobody looking over their shoulders. The same company said they’d had so many candidate, including university graduates, who simply couldn’t code, that they were almost giving up on it.
Suddenly I feel like a fucking accomplished programmer, despite only doing some questionable stuff on Godot lately, but never messing up my loops… Not too badly anymore, anyway.
A fizzbuzz type of question I know I would mess up on the modulo operator. I know the logic is if the division of the current_number by 3 has a remainder of zero, write fizz, but I always look up the operator
Yeah it always feels like “negative logic” to me. If it’s not this and not that then don’t do the other… Does my head in. Next time I’m going to use a lookup table “x…f.bf…fb.f…” then mod15 the index. f=Fizz, b=Buzz, x=both. Nice thing about this is that it’s easier to change with the requirements. Want to shift the second fizz right one? No problem “x…f.b.f.fb.f…”. Good luck doing that with the standard approach. Add Gronk which collides with Fizz, Buzz or both at various times? Also no problem - just extend and modify the LUT accordingly and change the mod.
I can already hear people asking why x is at the start. Arrays are indexed from 0. FizzBuzz starts at 1. 15 mod 15 is zero. Loop N from 1-100, switch on lookup[N%15], case ‘f’ print Fizz, case ‘g’ print Gronk, case ‘p’ print FizzGronk and so on. The only “nice” original feature you lose is when both %3 and %5 fire at the same time and it prints FizzBuzz without any extra code.
Same, fizzbuzz was one of our tests. Nearly everyone messed it up. The telling part was how. We had a guy with 20 years of experience who demanded ample compensation write code that not only didn’t compile, but it made little sense. A lot of people were pretty good bullshitters - then after the test they went “Yeah, well… That went bad huh?”. We had a different, more difficult test that people could choose. We had one guy who did somewhat poorly on that… But asked to take the assignment home for his own sake. He was a very god hire. Not because he worked overtime or anything but because he cared.
_ is a variable name, [] becomes 0 when converted to an integer, !![] becomes 1. The + “” + means that the integers 1, 0, 0 get converted to a string - “100”, which gets converted back to an integer because it’s in the for loop. And there’s various other horrible conversions going on to make it all work.
I knew a dude who got a job for a programming language he never wrote. Not only that, the guy was hired to be the experienced / lead programmer to give guidance on how to use the language. In fact, I knew multiple people like this. Some were actual programmers and good at other programming languages, but some had decided it was time to switch from another field (geology, marketing, database engineer, …).
Sometimes, aptitude and an ability to learn and grow is more valuable than having specific technology knowledge. It suggests a more generalist take on one’s career, which means they are always going to be useful. There’s also something to be said for “soft skills” and a person’s overall attitude. All this can make the balance for a lack of technical experience, provided they have demonstrated talent an ability to close such gaps.
Other times, the whole hiring process is just completely broken. Your friend may have had to contend with co-workers that were utterly incapable at their jobs.
I used to work at a company that used XSLT. They know that it’s an obscure language that probably none of the potential candidates have ever worked with. But it’s easy enough to learn the basics in an hour or two.
So the entry test was to strip some tags from an XML file. You had a day or two (maybe more) to do it. My solution wasn’t ideal, I didn’t use several of the shortcuts available in the language. But at least it did what it was supposed to.
A few weeks after I had started working there my boss came up to me, visibly frustrated and asked me whether the test was too hard. Thinking back on my problems I replied that maybe having the desired output ready so that you could test your own solution against it might be nice. But my boss’s problem was that none of the last 5 candidates could even send in a solution that would run.
You had so much time, and running an XSLT script is really easy and takes no time at all. And for some inane reason these people couldn’t even manage to test their code and still decided to send it in.
And I thought I was an idiot when I didn’t know if it was spelled grey or gray in CSS during the in-person interview.
It just came up in a discussion. The test was to spot mistakes in some HTML code. I marked the “gray”. The guy I did it with said that that’s not a mistake. At least he thinks it’s not. We were musing about that for a minute and later found out that I was wrong. Nothing major. I just felt stupid about it.
I felt especially stupid because he seemed to be rather important. While everyone’s e-mail address was firstname.lastname@company.tld his was joe@company.tld.
But he was just a nice guy and apparently I did well and got my rather high salary approved.
Some shit still use XSL at my workplace, and once I got a task with them, so… I hit up some online resources and fixed the issue.
I kid you not, from there on, I was (and still am) the XSL guy and gave me more XSL designing and work.
I mean, it’s not hard, a tiny little bit complex, but I really just spent half hour researching and some googling during work to complete these tasks, it in its own way makes sense.
But they just… aren’t willing to maintain those XSLs, because they indeed looks really ugly and scary in a way.
It is very good test for the ability to research, I think. The amount of people who painstakingly went through some video tutorial on PHP and are now developers is insane. I’m sure there’s place in the market for them (writing Wordpress themes/plugins, for example), but it’s hard to find a programmer with ability to think these days. Not because people are more stupid, but because every other person is a programmer now.
You had a day or two […] none of the last 5 candidates could even send in a solution that would run.
As harsh as this sounds, this test was doing its job. Assuming you’re not hiring junior candidates, that is.
One day is enough to research XSLT enough to get the gist, and two is enough for a polished solution. And since we’re just stripping tags, we’re really just selecting for all the inner text, which is weird but not hard to do with the right selector expression. The task also selects for people that understand XML processing as programmatically manipulating a DOM, which is crucial to wrapping your head around more advanced tasks.
I hope these aren’t real. I, and most people here, could probably write these codes top to bottom on paper without an eraser or strikethrough parts because we have it fully solved before the interviewer finished the sentence.
Is it? I would expect someone to come up with either toggling a variable back and forth for even/odd, or counting by 2s, heck, treat it as a floating point, divide by two, and search the string representation for a period or something!
Sure, programming is hard if you’ve never worked with programming language features before… Modulus isn’t some obscure esoteric operator, it’s literally CS 101
I fell backwards into programming and did it for years before ever needing or encountering a mod operator. It never really came up in statistical programming (SAS) and since I wasn’t a CS major I don’t think I even learned about it until taking online programming classes for fun. But I know I was a pretty damn good SAS programmer. I never had any issues solving any problems in my field programmatically, but I took a few leet code tests and was completely puzzled before taking said CS classes. The algorithms and common problems just never remotely came up. I never found fizzbuzz particularly relevant in statistics and data CRUD.
Now maybe since SAS is procedural and not OO you’d say it doesn’t have typical “programming language features”, but I could easily see that experience being common in all kinda of business side programming like R, VBA, maybe JavaScript or Python, etc.
…but anyway obviously I’m not saying its not a good thing for a dev shop to interview on, and if they want someone classically trained then it’s probably a perfect question. My quibble is just that you might need to widen your definition of who programs.
Shouldn’t people familiar with integer arithmetic should be able to struggle to something like x == 2 * (x/2) to test if it is odd or even? Or just bitwise x & 1?
Add comment