[robinhoode]

Reading that line made me cringe. Memorizing APIs come in handy for interviews or perhaps fixing bugs in production but not so much for day-to-day work.

Now, math equations or the minute details of data structures and algorithms.. Those can be hard to internalize and knowing them well is very helpful when reading papers or other diving into open source projects which make critical use of advanced, specialized knowledge.

[Filligree]

> Memorizing APIs come in handy for interviews or perhaps fixing bugs in production but not so much for day-to-day work.

Some interviews, maybe. As you say, it doesn't matter much for day-to-day work -- and so I put no weight on it when rating interviews either. If the candidate remembers the right method names, great. If they don't, who cares.

I always make a point of explaining that I'm not testing them on API memorization.

[matz1]

If there are 2 candidate, one can remember stuff and other don't, everything else being equal, who are u going to pick?

[closeparen]

Both. Tech companies are ravenous for anyone and everyone who clears the bar; “choose the best from N applicants” is not a model for the hiring process.

[matz1]

If you only can hire one?

[hnuser355]

Was it Seneca who mocked this line of thinking? If I remember right he mocked it by saying either

1) a good man is a good man and thus equal to other good men

Or

2) you proceed through so many qualifications and “but what if this guy was prettier or had nicer tone of voice than the other good man all else equal” etc until you admit that you include minute details like the exact placement of every hair follicle on some dudes head in your proposed total ordering of humanity

[throwawaymath]

I'll admit there's probably an argument against that method of evaluation, but I'm not exactly blown away by Seneca's arguments.

In particular, I'm not convinced the evaluation must extend from arguably relevant features to obviously irrelevant features. Even if I'm ultimately wrong, I can mount a defensible argument that memory is relevant to programming ability. I do not see a way to mount a defensible argument that (for example) facial features are relevant to programming ability.

[matz1]

So choose the one you think it's better, for me its the prettier one. What's wrong with that? It's better than just flipping a coin.

[closeparen]

Hopefully the candidates realize that the interview is only the first of many shitty zero-sum games, and they opt for growing positive-sum companies instead.

[matz1]

Or the candidate realize that this is something they too can learn to improve themselves instead of dismissing it.

[bryanrasmussen]

This relates to my most hated interview question - "If someone else can do what you do but they also have X quality why should we pick you?" Which always makes me want to contemptuously exclaim "Well obviously you shouldn't, fool!"

I have never actually gotten a job where the interview had a variation of that question.

on edit: changed explain to exclaim, don't think it significantly changed the meaning in context however.

[toast0]

Remembering stuff is important, but in an interview, all I expect is that the candidate can remember what they discussed 10-20 minutes ago (in the same interview), and that they use a credible looking syntax that's self-consistent; and that they can explain anything they wrote.

I also give a problem that doesn't use a lot of library functions.

[pjmlp]

The one that will be a better team member.