[lmilcin]

If you can't readily demonstrate ability to write a simple function but insist on getting hired as a developer you are, by definition, overestimating your ability as software developer, because you can't code.

If you need to grind to be able to write code you are doing something wrong. Like spending too much time at work copying code from stack exchange or relying on running your code to tell you if it is correct.

[loftyal]

Grinding leetcode != software engineering. That is my entire point, not sure why you're confused.

[lmilcin]

Why do you assume it is I who are confused?

Never had to "grind" to get any software development job I wanted even though I am always expected to demonstrate my coding ability.

Actually, I wouldn't let myself be hired by a company that does not verify if their candidates can code. Too much of a drag working with people who can't pull their weight.

[sm1k]

> Never had to "grind" to get any software development job I wanted even though I am always expected to demonstrate my coding ability.

Good for you. Either you are quite gifted or you're not talking about interviews in FAANG or other similar companies like Doordash, Instacart etc. but rather other "easier" SF startups.

I think you seem to be assuming two things: 1. Most interview questions are intuitive and one should be able to organically come to an efficient solution within 40 mins without any prior practice. 2. Anyone who can't do that, is not worthy of being a software engineer

In my experience, both those assertions are false. If you look at the difficulty of questions companies are asking, I can assure you that no reasonable software engineer (unless they do competitive programming as a hobby) would be able to solve them. On the other hand, even a mediocre engineer who has been "grinding" on Leetcode will have a far better chance on solving them since they have seen them before. In short your prep of interview

At this point, it appears to me that the companies know that Leetcode exists and that their questions end up there and they still ask the questions marked as "hard" since most serious candidates would have already prepared for the "medium" ones.

[lmilcin]

If the exercise requires some kind of leap then it is a bad task for interview. For example: "please, implement A-star". On the other hand, better task is one that removes unnecessary leaps: "given this description of A-star, please, implement it". Which is what I try to do when I prepare tasks.

After all what I want to learn is how a person approaches implementing something and not whether they have good enough memory and luck.

If those FAANG companies do something else, it is their problem. There are so many companies you don't absolutely have to work for them.

The only reason they can get away with this is exactly because a lot of developers think either FAANG or bust.