[ubernostrum]

To be honest, your comment doesn't make you seem like you're someone who actually knows anything about or is particularly good at coding -- rather, it makes you seem like someone desperate not to have to compete with a larger field of candidates, and grasping for any reason you can find to claim they shouldn't be allowed to try for the same jobs as you.

Also, I'm quite sure someone could easily come up with comments just as arrogant as yours, about you.

[daliwali]

I'm not too worried. There are Indians who will do my job for $15/hr. The fact that they haven't undercut the whole industry doesn't surprise me.

[kirRoyale]

I didn't think their comment was arrogant.

When I saw "Data Structures" for interviews, I didn't think it would be explaining binary to us.

[ubernostrum]

Usually, any "(X) for Interviews" post is a review of things that in theory a programmer learns very early on and then forgets due to disuse (since most programming interviews are essentially pop quizzes on such things).

The ironic thing is that this biases toward the most newly-minted programmer; actual experienced working programmers rarely need to implement basic data structures or their relevant algorithms from scratch (they rely on existing implementations), and so move them to dusty disused corners of their minds, while newly-trained programmers with no job experience have been regurgitating these things on exams quite recently.

So even the dismissiveness is wrong -- the original commenter is, to be honest, less likely to pass such an interview without remedial study, compared to the "young, beautiful people drinking kombucha and listening to Spotify" being sneered at, who probably have been taught more recently and have it fresher in their minds.

[fundabulousrIII]

It should be mandatory for programmers to be able to concoct even bad examples of a sort algorithm in real time and create data structures for anything from a linked list to binary trees.

It is also important to have candidate code samples for an interview with dissection and analysis by the candidate. This is to understand where the programmer is in their professional development, how much is copy-paste and how much is functional and design integration. All this demonstrates level of knowledge and the candidates productive approaches.

Having to teach programmers how to deal with recursion and other fundamental concepts or language specific approaches like pointer arithmetic or interpreted language nuances like lambda calculus and list comprehension should not be on the table.

[ubernostrum]

Ah yes, "fundamentals". Also known as "everyone should have to go through the same hazing rituals I went through!"

[CodeMage]

All modern software is built on layers upon layers of leaky abstractions. If you view fundamentals as nothing more than hazing rituals, you won't even be aware of just where the abstractions start to leak and you'll end up writing shitty code. Of course, it's perfectly possible nowadays to do so and let it be an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem).

[ubernostrum]

Also, I'm just going to quote it:

I got an impression who their target audience is, based on the examples used, drinking kombucha and listening to Spotify.

All the young, beautiful people who wouldn't have ever taken a computer science course if it weren't such a lucrative industry to be in right now.

Maybe with this guide they can pass an interview at a big company where they just twiddle with bits all day. I won't be holding my breath until they can produce something useful.

You don't see any arrogance here? All it needed was an avocado-toast reference to be indistinguishable from a "why millennials are terrible and my generation is much better than them" thinkpiece.

[daliwali]

I'm a millenial myself, not older than the people I am critiquing. (after looking up your profile I realize that I am much younger than you)

My comment was made in jest, pointing out how incongruent technical interviews can be to the job they're interviewing for, which I think doesn't imply any arrogance. Maybe you are reading it differently.