[jorgemf]

As an engineer you should be able to see the global picture and know other things. Because you wont be able to use something to solve your problem if you don't know it in advance. I mean, you don't need to know the details, but you need to know how things works.

For example, you might not need an AVL tree in your daily job, but if one day you need it to use it, you wont be able to notice if you don't know what is an AVL tree and what is its advantages over other trees.

Another example, you don't need to know http1 and http2 differences for your daily work. But if you know them you will change how you do web pages and you will see a leap in terms of performance and scability. And that knowledge also includes some knowledge about TCP, UDP, cache and other stuff.

[FLUX-YOU]

The amount of things we need to know is not commensurate with salaries for companies that lazily copy someone else's interview. Most of us are not practitioners that get to dictate a lot of the technical decisions. We're just told we need to know what an AVL tree is before we can work on CRUD app #4272095.

If you work really hard, learn all of this stuff, and do a really good job and save your company a bunch of trouble by knowing all of this, you won't get a dime for it, and that's the problem. You get a pat on the back and you feel slightly less like an imposter for a few days.

People are arguing that we should offer quality for free. This is what open source is for.

I would argue security is more important than performance knowledge, but there is virtually zero focus on this that I've heard from the technical interview rabble-rousing that goes on in these threads.

[jorgemf]

> If you work really hard, learn all of this stuff, and do a really good job and save your company a bunch of trouble by knowing all of this, you won't get a dime for it, and that's the problem

I think that is your problem. I don't stay in companies where I don't feel valued. And anyway you are receiving a salary every month for your work. If you think you should get more, ask for more or move to another place.

For some people security is more important, for it is not. Because I believe that in the current society the companies can fall in few years (Nokia, Canon, ...). My security lies in my knowledge and my skills, and that is something I take with me whereever I am. I recall something I read, it was like this: "A bird is not scared of a branch to break, because it lies his confidence in his skills to fly".

[FLUX-YOU]

>My security lies in my knowledge and my skills, and that is something I take with me whereever I am.

Sorry, I was confusing, I meant network and information security. Using a good password hash/library, not trusting user input, knowing some basic attacks or stuff from OWASP Top 10 and how to reproduce them. That stuff is still a problem. I'll admit I probably know less than I should because it's at the fore-front of my mind and I don't practice often, but it just seems weird that a company would prefer performance over secure coding.

[jorgemf]

Oh I missunderstood, sorry. I think everything is important, the more you know the better you can do your job. Probably maintenance comes before security, and security before performance. But it depends on the case.

[kafkaesq]

... but if one day you need it to use it, you wont be able to notice if you don't know what is an AVL tree and what is its advantages over other trees.

No, what would happen is you'd say to yourself "Hmm, looks like I need a self-balancing tree. Haven't thought about those in N years..." and do a few seconds of keyword searching. The idea that people will be utterly helpless on their jobs without instantaneous photographic recall† of AVL tress (and A-star, and all the other crap people are bullied into memorizing these days) just doesn't hold water.

† Which, as we know, is the only level of recall acceptable in the modern interview process. Even momentarily hesitating in your recall of certain definitions will easily get you flushed by some interviewers.

[jorgemf]

The research you have to do is based on your previous knowledge. The less you know the more you need to learn when you are facing a problem you don't know how to solve it. But people is lazy, if they know a way to solve it they will go that way even if it is the worst way possible.

I am not talking about implementing an AVL tree without any help or resource. That is simple stupid, we have internet we must use it and save time. My point is that you need to know that there are balanced trees, know some of them and they characteristics. That knowledge will save you time when you face problems related to trees. You are not going to know all the trees because researches are working on new ones every day, but you should have some knowledge in the area.

If you interviewer drop you because you hesitate in something, maybe it is the interviewer problem and not yours. We are not perfect, we should know people will make mistakes and hesitate. I was rejected of interviews when I hesitate when they asked something about linked lists. I was happy it happened, because I was in shock when I was explanning how I did something with and A* algorithm and a octree and I couldn't believe the next question was about a linked list. I wouldn't be happy in that company.

[neuronexmachina]

> No, what would happen is you'd say to yourself "Hmm, looks like I need a self-balancing tree. Haven't thought about those in N years..."

You're attacking a strawman which has little to do with the original post or what the other commenter is saying. There's a lot of developers out there who lack the knowledge to ask the question you pose in the first place, so wouldn't end up doing that searching. The type of interviewing you're criticizing is intended to identify developers lacking the kind of base knowledge needed as a foundation for further inquiry.

[pseudalopex]

Knowing when to use an AVL tree is orthogonal to being able to write one under pressure on a whiteboard. But as long as someone knows that different trees have different performance characteristics, I care more about how they decided what to optimize and why they recommend a lookup-optimized tree over a cache.

[jorgemf]

Yes, this is what I meant