←back to thread

191 points foxfired | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.398s | source
Show context
Esophagus4 ◴[] No.45112231[source]
Every few weeks, someone posts an article about how broken tech interviews are, and the articles always follow the same formula: but I’m really good at REAL engineering… it’s the INTERVIEWS that are wrong!

It sounds like the author may have faced a bad interviewer, but I’d be curious to see their feedback on the author so we get both sides.

As I comment each time: you’re not being asked to sort a million item array because it represents the job, you’re being asked to sort a million item array because I want to see how you think, how you solve problems, and how good your underlying CS fundamentals are.

Yes - that means regardless of seniority, I expect you to know CAP theorem. Sure, knowing CAP theorem does not imply you are a good engineer, but being a good engineer DOES imply you know CAP theorem.

The job will change from project to project, but the CS skills should carry through.

replies(5): >>45112350 #>>45115600 #>>45116569 #>>45118008 #>>45120775 #
siva7 ◴[] No.45115600[source]
> Sure, knowing CAP theorem does not imply you are a good engineer, but being a good engineer DOES imply you know CAP theorem.

Eh, no it doesn't? I guess it's one of those questions - what makes a good software engineer - that people will never universally agree on like many other topics in the field but still think their own truth is universal.

replies(1): >>45118165 #
1. Esophagus4 ◴[] No.45118165[source]
Those that don’t know CS fundamentals end up making bad technology decisions.

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve failed a “senior” level engineer because when I asked, “Tell me why you chose X database on Y project,” the only thing they could come up with was, “Well, we were storing JSON data, so we used Mongo.”

I don’t want to be left cleaning up the mess that guy makes.