[lmarcos]

> You gotta play it.

If you want a job in those companies, sure. But if you want a decent job in a decent software company, you don't have to go through all that show. There are companies that don't ask that sort of questions and instead they interview you in a sane manner (they ask about past experience, they let you talk about what you actually know... The whole interview feels like a conversation).

[decafninja]

I disagree. I've been interviewing heavily the past 3 years and I've noticed that at least for the major US tech hubs (say, SFBA, Seattle, NYC, as well as LA, and from my understanding, London in the UK too) pretty much all the companies I would rate as "decent" or better to have a career as a SWE are gatekeeped by leetcode interviews. Difficulty and selectivity varies of course.

There are exceptions, but they are getting fewer and fewer. i.e. some companies that did not leetcode when I got my current job (5 years ago) are now leetcoding. Even companies in that famous "they don't whiteboard" list will leetcode you from my experience (I reckon its really a team by team basis thing).

You might be able to find a good company that will not leetcode you, but if you are trying to maximize your potential to get a good job at a good company, the best strategy is to grind leetcode, as opposed to hunting for a White Whale.

[cosmotic]

In my experience, leetcode-type interviews are indicative of a not-good job at a not-good company.

[decafninja]

Maybe your definitions aren't the same as mine (which is perfectly fine!).

My own definition of a good company to work for as a SWE would be somewhere that:

- treats and respects tech and technologists as valuable first class citizens. Not merely a necessary evil.

- good compensation and perks.

- good working environment.

- great, talented colleagues.

- bonus: looks great on your resume and opens doors to potential future opportunities.

I would say most jobs at most well known tech companies (say, FAANG and others) would qualify...and most are gatekeeped by leetcode. I'm guessing you would not consider these to be good companies?

[cosmotic]

I think all those are great things to have.

leetcode and puzzle-based interviews are indicative of thoughtless interview process that are lacking evidence as to their efficacy. Google used to focus on puzzles so everyone followed. Eventually google thought to look at the efficacy and realized it was poor, so google focused much less on the puzzles and it's taking a long time for folks to catch up. If an organization claims to respect evidence (as most large tech companies do) but have lackluster or nonexistent feedback loops around interviews, that hypocrisy is a red flag.

Take home tests like leetcode show a lack of respect and trust in the engineers, which I consider a bad work environment.

The high pay is usually because the organizations have tons of cash and are rarely indicative of interesting work (or the work is interesting but the product is discarded after completion). Most large, high paying, highly respected software companies have been stagnating for over a decade and sailing through on their monopolies. Then there are ethical considerations. At least that's how I justify avoiding that world. Maybe I'm totally out of touch with reality.