|
|
|
|
|
by 908B64B197
1680 days ago
|
|
> Then they go on and explain i’d have to do 4 more meetings 1-2 hours each, including a leetcode-style tech interview. In my head i’m thinking: “If their leetcode-engineers are that good why do they have rely on my open-source?” Honestly leetcode is fraud detection at this point. I've seen "engineers" with good looking resumes who couldn't FizzBuzz. And a way to filter out huge red-flag (can't work with someone else). |
|
as I candidate I actually love leetcode problems. it's a clear evaluation target that I can prepare for as much as I want in my own time. if I can solve most lc mediums in thirty minutes, I can be confident I'll get at least one offer with good compensation.
I'm less clear on the value lc provides to the employer. the hardest problems actual engineers face are nailing down requirements and figuring out who/what to consult to unblock themselves. by the time you sit down to code a solution to a well-defined problem, most of the work is already done.
to put it in joel spolsky terms, lc tests for "smart", but doesn't provide any signal for "gets stuff done".