←back to thread

178 points henwfan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.401s | source

I built AlgoDrill because I kept grinding LeetCode, thinking I knew the pattern, and then completely blanking when I had to implement it from scratch a few weeks later.

AlgoDrill turns NeetCode 150 and more into pattern-based drills: you rebuild the solution line by line with active recall, get first principles editorials that explain why each step exists, and everything is tagged by patterns like sliding window, two pointers, and DP so you can hammer the ones you keep forgetting. The goal is simple: turn familiar patterns into code you can write quickly and confidently in a real interview.

https://algodrill.io

Would love feedback on whether this drill-style approach feels like a real upgrade over just solving problems once, and what’s most confusing or missing when you first land on the site.

Show context
dragochat ◴[] No.46204035[source]
...the f?! why are we interviewing ppl for things like this?!

you either:

(a) want DEEP understanding of math and proofs behind algorithms etc.

(b) can get away with very high level understanding, and refer to documentation and/or use LLMs for implementation details help

there is no real world use case for a middle-ground (c) where you want someone with algo implementation details rote-memorized in their brain and without the very deep understanding that would make the rote-memorization unnecessary!

replies(6): >>46204107 #>>46204309 #>>46204381 #>>46204459 #>>46204667 #>>46207296 #
farhanhubble ◴[] No.46204107[source]
People are sheep. Someone somewhere used mathematical puzzles as interview questions. That someone became big. Others assumed it was because their interview process was amazing and followed blindly. Soon enough the process started to be gamed.

I'm seeing this trend again in the field of AI where math olympiad participants are being given God like status by a few companies and the media.

Truth is even the most prolific computational scientists will flunk these idiotic interviews.

replies(3): >>46204269 #>>46204964 #>>46207592 #
1. netdevphoenix ◴[] No.46204269[source]
Hundred percent. Classic example of academic smarts vs real world smarts.

It's why developers as a group will lose negotiating power over time. You would expect a smart person to question why that 'problem' exists in the first place rather than forge ahead and making a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. It's like your manager telling you to write a software that does something, whatever that is. Your first question should be why and you should not type a single letter until you understand the domain and whether a software solution is needed in the first place.

For all the intellectuality modern devs give to themselves, they are still asking how high when told to jump. And in some cases even bragging about jump heights. Only difference is that many devs look down upon others (or simply are unable to understand those) who refuse to jump.

We all know devs have better things to focus on, given the state of modern software development.