| I have changed the job recently, and I did a few interviews. I enjoyed pair programming and code review that some of them did. Especially that this is something a software engineer, does daily as opposed to implementing complex algorithms, it felt more like I am being tested on skills that are required. One of the companies, most interactive, did a bit of role-playing. Interviewers took on the roles of product owner and my teammate to help with code if needed. They provided a simple code base with REST API, and I had to implement new endpoint and later there was "change in requirements". I had to refactor the code a bit. Tasks were simple but stimulated a lot of conversations about how and why allowing to cover a wide range of concepts. Two companies said "pair programming", but in reality, it was me writing code for tasks they wrote down for me without much interaction. Interviewers were mostly silently watching me with occasional nudge if they saw me struggle at some point. But still better than whiteboard :) One company provided me with a task to solve, and I had a few minutes to read it and ask them questions if any. They left me for an hour to implement it. I don't think they expect anyone to 100% solve the tasks, but I'm sure it could be done in that time frame if you are fluent in tools best suited for it. After one hour, they came back, checked my progress, asked questions about decisions I made and followed up with a conversation on how I would continue and implement remaining parts. Code review, I was presented with one page of code, nothing complex, but there were either some bugs or code had a questionable quality. We had a conversation about what I think should be changed and why. I know you asked for company names but I think if you job hunting just ask for a details of the process on first contact. They usually provide it anyway and see if they do things you like and cut it short if they have some things you don't like. I just wanted to share that if the have pair programming and code review in the process they may have a good process. |