The fallacy here is that you are actually getting to observe people's problem solving approach when asking them questions like this (vs their ability to talk) and that your subjective perception of someone's problem solving ability in those situations maps to actual job performance at all (vs your own biases).
The entire point is that I _am_ gauging their ability to talk with me through something they may or may not be uncomfortable with. This has worked well in the past and most people deal with this favorably.
If their response is "this is stupid, no one has to know how to do this" and storm out with the same indignation that is present in half of these comments then they are not the ones who dodged a bullet.
Is that a fallacy with basic algorithm questions, or with interviewing in general? How does another category of question provide objective feedback about problem solving ability instead?
I hear this a lot, but I've been in interviews were, yes, it really is about writing the BFS (or whatever algorithm they were asking for). I can remember one, where I was asked to write write an algorithm that, given a vector of points, calculates the euclidean distance between every pair of points. I wrote out a one-liner in MATLAB that accomplished the task in about 2 minutes, but then they wanted to see it in C++. Then I wrote it out in C++, which I don't know so well, so it ended up being in pseudo-C++. Then we spent the remainder of the time quibbling about syntax errors and missing import statements. It was very clear to me the interviewer only wanted to see perfect, compiling C++ on the white board, and had no interest in my problem solving or thought process.
> It was very clear to me the interviewer only wanted to see perfect, compiling C++ on the white board, and had no interest in my problem solving or thought process.
It depends on the position you apply for, I'd say.
Some jobs require C++ and algorithmic skills. If you don't know how to write a basic algorithm in C++, then you might not be the best fit - and you might not want to join the company as a junior developer.
FWIW, this example was for a company that refused to tell me what the job description was and what the position was. They didn't tell me ahead of time which languages they preferred or what kind of work I would be doing. It's a company everyone knows and is renowned for their secrecy. While they refused to tell me what they were looking for, it became clear during the interview they were looking for something very specific.
I'm fairly certain I know which company you're talking about - I'd recommend you redact the specific question they asked, because I'm aware that they do check online (including HN) for interview questions that were asked. You have plausible deniability as long as you don't name the company, but given the NDA they throw at you it's probably better to be safe than sorry :)
That being said - sorry to hear that was your experience. That shouldn't have happened, but it does.
> Some jobs require C++ and algorithmic skills. If you don't know how to write a basic algorithm in C++, then you might not be the best fit - and you might not want to join the company as a junior developer.
If it's down to syntax errors, and the logic is correct, what the heck does it matter? Almost everyone writes code in an IDE that will deal with those syntax errors.
Let's say you have 2 people in front of you and they both design the same algorithm and come up with the same solution (sometimes that's really the case).
One writes code that cannot be compiled while the other does. Who scores higher?
Now, let's say you are a big company and have 100 applications for that position and do the math...
It does make the reply look more brash, though. Good that [s]he made it less inflammatory, but it would have been courteous to add "edit: made the tone a bit nicer" or something.
That all depends on the intention. If the intention is to make my response look more hostile, than I would say it goes against the conduct of HN. They could have replied or added a remark in the edit. The poster could have said "editing, sorry for getting too heated" or something if the intention was to deescalate, but this was a ninja edit.
If your first contact with a potential hire is asking them asinine pointless riddles meant to try to imbalance them you are going into the process with an adversarial relationship.
Which is probably the root problem. Almost all tech hiring is carried out like a war between companies that want results and candidates who don't want to be treated like shit.
I never understoood this. What does that even means and what is good and what is bad way to approach the question?
Because BFS has two approaches - 1.) I know BFS or similar example and will write it with no thinking 2.) I am figuring it out in head while saying things to keep you pleased.
You don't need to know employee internal thought process. Practically, BFS tests whether you are able to BFS, which is cool by me. It is simple enough so that people who were really unable to learn it should really be filtered out.
(It is ok to not know name, obviously. Just ability to find a thing in datastructure should be question.)