[sho]

And it's ridiculous IMO. Any interview question that can be answered completely with 20 seconds of googling is useless. I've encountered a couple of these "obscure programming trivia" type questions before and each time I wanted to quiz the interviewer back with random shit I happen to know pretty well that I'm 100% certain he or she couldn't answer either.

A good developer doesn't optimise for a specific problem or even group of problems, they optimise for the meta-problem, which is how to quickly find the solution they need no matter what the problem happens to be. No-one can possibly know everything, and these gotcha-type questions say more about the interviewer than the interviewee.

[notyourloops]

It wasn't really 'trivia'. It was several hours of difficult problem solving without reference material, given access only to a whiteboard and a judge.

The studying that would have led to a success:

* Memorizing a significant amount of the interview's programming language. Since there is no reference material, you really need to know it. No standard library reference to help you out.

* Solving enough algorithms and data structures problems to be able to minimize the time needed to identify and implement them. There is a time constraint, so blanking out or slowly deriving them is a recipe for rejection.

I'm doing both of the above, and I know I'll have success this time around, but it was jarring the first time.

Honestly, I'm OK with this now, because I am good at studying and learning. I just wasn't expecting it initially, because I wasn't going in for a position at Google or something. The company advertised the position as needing much less experience than that. So I was really surprised (and under-prepared) when I was given the whole day coding interview process.

[alacombe]

> It wasn't really 'trivia'. It was several hours of difficult problem solving without reference material, given access only to a whiteboard and a judge

Even more irrelevant with today's access to Google, StackOverflow and alike. I've done my share of learning by heart pages of demonstration for some obscure quantum physic model, puking it the day of the test, and then forgetting about it. It the company is looking for an obedient monkey, well, I'll pass.

> Honestly, I'm OK with this now, because I am good at studying and learning.

But are you any good at analyzing a combination of problems never encountered before ?

[notyourloops]

> But are you any good at analyzing a combination of problems never encountered before ?

Haven't won a Nobel Prize yet, otherwise most work is done by first examining what I know vs. what I don't, and then using the appropriate tools (search, reference -> think -> implement/test -> discuss, as necessary) to accomplish the next steps.

Regardless of what I think and what I know, or even of my abilities to solve novel problems, the industry has decided upon its entrance exams.

Many times the problems vary on the surface, but the core concepts do not, and so the iterations and combinations thereof are solvable by polling previously encountered experience (study & practice).

[emodendroket]

The way to solve a problem you've not encountered is usually to break it up into smaller problems you do know how to solve, and it's easy to see how some rote learning could help here.

[sho]

OK, agreed that's not the trivia I was talking about. Although honestly it sounds like you dodged a bullet, if anything your experience is even more ridiculous. Does this company make a habit of writing programs on whiteboards without any references?

It, uh, probably does help to know the language you're being interviewed for, although a good programmer in any language can almost certainly start being productive in another one within a month. A good hiring process knows this, too.

[notyourloops]

There's knowing a programming language and where to look when you're unsure of the details, and there's knowing a programming language.

I could write programs in the target language on a computer, easily, but on a whiteboard I encountered a few halts where I would have used the reference docs. When I asked a doc reference question, I immediately could tell from facial expression alone that my interviewer was docking me points.

Was that experience ridiculous? I know it changed my willingness to interview more until I've mastered more material. I'm not going to burn time and money to be grilled for several hours and not be able to nail it.

I'm employed full time but it's time for advancement, so I've been studying a lot.

[emodendroket]

On the other hand, someone with more knowledge accessible off the top of their head is more able to find and assimilate new information too.

[taurath]

Thats not the case. Being good at trivia doesn't mean you're able to concentrate enough to synthesize solutions using the knowledge you have.

[emodendroket]

That doesn't seem to be true. https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/LookItUp...

> For instance, there is a domain of cognitive science called “expert-novice studies.” Two of its leading figures are Herbert A. Simon, the Nobel Prize winner, and Jill Larkin, who has co-authored articles on this subject with Simon. Their studies provide an insight into the paradox that you can successfully look something up only if you already know quite a lot about the subject. In these studies, an expert is characteristically a specialist who knows a lot about a field—say a chess master or a physicist, whereas a novice knows very little. Because the expert already knows a great deal, you might suppose that she would learn very little when she looked something up. By contrast, you might think that the novice, who has so much to learn, ought to gain a still greater quantity of new information from consulting a dictionary or encyclopedia or the Internet. But, on the contrary, it’s the expert who learns more that is new, and learns it much faster than the novice. It’s extremely hard for a novice to learn very much in a reasonable time by looking things up.

The linked paper is interesting and elaborates this phenomenon a lot more than the one quote.

[taurath]

That is really quite interesting! Thanks for sharing.