|
|
|
|
|
|
by Xyik
2669 days ago
|
|
|
The issue is not so much white boarding as that is a broad term like others have mentioned. Using a whiteboard is a common part of many jobs. But it is not often that we have to write 100% correct code that compiles on whiteboards quickly. What whiteboards should be testing for is problem solving, and whether a candidate can use a whiteboard to illustrate, communicate and collaborate towards solving a problem. So if the question becomes whether or not problem solving should be evaluated, i think the answer is obviously yes, and algorithms have a place here. However, algorithms should not be the ONLY way to evaluate this attribute. |
|
|
I'm not looking for 100% correct code. I'm just looking for evidence that they've actually designed/specified something in enough detail to start implementing, then actually implemented that something, beyond the level of cookbooking assignments from coursework. There is a big difference between those two levels of experience.
You don't even need to make something that completely runs. I just want to see evidence that given a brand new problem, you can understand enough to see what the several implementation problems would be, and I'd like to see if you can completely specify the solution to just one or two of them.
algorithms have a place here. However, algorithms should not be the ONLY way to evaluate this attribute.
If they can do everything with reasonable efficiency with just hashes and vectors, that's fine. What I want to see is if they've actually built something, and effectively dealt with all of the details that come up, or whether they're blind to the concrete details and just want to handwave them.