[lambdatronics]

>representative of real work - you'll need to track down code you likely didn't write and implement new functionality, or fix something that's broken

This. The stereotypical algo interview assumes a greenfield project, but there's almost always "legacy code" you'll need to grok first.

“Indeed, the ratio of time spent reading versus writing is well over 10 to 1.” ― Robert C. Martin

[disgruntledphd2]

And yet so many people refuse to read working code, and agitate for re-writes.

It's just bizarre to me.

[lambdatronics]

When all you have is a hammer.... Think about it: coursework is all about writing new code. I can't recall any resources for learning "software archeology."

Part of the deal is the 'humiliation' of being stuck following someone else's stylistic/design/naming-scheme choices. Another aspect is the curse of knowledge, leading to useless documentation. Plus, it's easy to underestimate the amount of effort required to reinvent the wheel: all the necessary complexity looks like incidental complexity at first glance. "Why should I be forced to learn all this gobblety-guck when I should just be able to re-implement from scratch in an afternoon? [... three weeks later] Oh, now I see why."