[noleetcode]

Anecdotal on my part, but I interviewed with them earlier this year. I was told by the recruiter (an internal recruiter, to be clear, not a third-party), in no uncertain terms, that their interview process did not involve "leetcode-style problems" and would, instead, be a "real world problem" close to what an engineer might be expected to solve normally.

I was told (and this was reflected in the interview prep materials they provided) that bringing my own IDE and screen-sharing was the norm, although they would be prepared with a collaborative online editor as backup. It would be a collaborative session where the interviewer would work through the problem with me (obviously with myself in the driver's seat).

I was reasonably excited. Finally, a tech firm that didn't cargo-cult leetcode hazing.

And then came the interview.

I leave it to the reader to guess at the nature of the problem (hint: it starts with 'l'). The interviewer also seemed entirely unprepared and surprised that I was prepared with my own IDE. They were also unwilling to collaborate, and unwilling to accept how I approached solving the problem (I like to write experimental pseudo-code out first as I think through things, especially when in an environment where drawing things out isn't easy. I let them know that was what I was doing and explained my thought process as I wrote it, and yet they kept interrupting and explaining that I could clean that code up... code that was not meant to be "final" or "complete"...)

It was just a terrible experience from beginning to end. From the recruiter presenting an interview plan that was clearly not in line with reality, to the interviewer being unprepared for what their own interview prep materials described (BYOIDE!), to the interviewer's unprofessional and very unhelpful demeanor (if day-to-day engineering at Stripe involves being berated at every step as you prototype a solution to solve a leetcode problem before preparing to write the actual solution...well, maybe they should fix that)

[acconrad]

> They were also unwilling to collaborate, and unwilling to accept how I approached solving the problem

Wow. Similar thing happened to me with Stripe. It was a system design interview. I had already seen a very similar problem and aced it with Amazon. This person just kept saying "we don't have time for this, we need to get through this whole system" - wouldn't even let me finish my thought. It was arbitrary whether they wanted me to dive into a section of the system more or if I was boring them (and they did not seem excited/engaged to present this interview) and taking too long explaining my decision.

Stripe was the only company I didn't pass (and I passed multiple FAANG interviews) and it was the only company who told me twice that the role I was applying for either was filled or "shifted priorities" and they would scramble to find me another role with another hiring manager. And I am certain it was because of this one system design interview that we just did not click on.

[inetknght]

Your comment and the parent comment smell like a company utilizing the hiring process to abuse potential candidates to actually solve the company's problems without paying them.

[dnautics]

Facebook was like "do you have experience using coderpad" "yes, I do... I've given interviews in it". Come time for the interview, I spend a considerable amount of time commenting out the stuff that the interviewer posted (could tell that she was looking at me like "why the hell is he doing that") into the coderpad, only to find out they had execution disabled. Fuck you, Facebook.

[ajkjk]

I feel like that's pretty common? In most interviews I've had/given you are not expected to write runnable code, and having to fix typos or library function names tends to be a stress-inducing distraction.

[dnautics]

Sure. Every whiteboard interview I have had has been like that, but the expectation with coderpad is that you write executable code. I've never taken or given an interview on coderpad that was otherwise, which is why I was shocked that was even possible as a feature on the platform. Otherwise you might as well use Google docs.

Anyways there was a tooling communication problem. Clearly Facebook was new to the coderpad thing, they should have come out and said so, they should have communicated that you won't be able to execute, etc.

[tsimionescu]

Never used coderpad, but my experience holding (online/remote) code interviews is that even using an IDE with standard error highlighting and color coding is just a waste of time - people start concentrating on fixing typos and adding keywords, as they are conditioned by the red squigglies, and that just detracts from the point of the problem. Having people actually try to make the code runnable would make things so much worse...

After experimenting with BYOIDE, we've stuck with online code style platforms (monotype fonts, no language-based Word-style auto-correct). This helps people focus on the problem, not the code itself, in my experience.

[neilparikh]

> Having people actually try to make the code runnable would make things so much worse...

I’m not sure I follow here. For me, programming is an iterative process: write a small chunk, test it out, write the next bit, and so on. Not being able to execute code seems like it would make that process harder, and force interviewee to essentially come up with the code “fully formed” all at once, which is hardly a useful or realistic skill.

[dnautics]

I've never run into this as a hirer. I don't test to see if a candidate can implement an algorithm from memory. In my test, I describe the steps for the algorithm and see if they can "follow the spec". I find most candidates (even seniors) can't, they can't help but make it 'more complicated than the spec asks for'.

[tsimionescu]

Neither do I. I want to see how they work through the problem, focusing on the problem. The IDE takes their focus away in my experience, they start correcting the squiqlies and adding extra bits of syntax that don't matter in a pseudo-code setting (such as adding closing brackets they forgot earlier) to avoid auto-spacing issues and so on.

[foobarian]

It may take a bit of extra time but one other positive of coderpad I found is that because it offers library-level auto-complete I noticed people relax a bit since they are not afraid I will ding them for not knowing some common method name or syntax.

[tsimionescu]

To me that's exactly the problem: I don't care if they call it sort or orderBy and so on, and I make this abundantly clear. Them spending time and mental energy to change the order of params or other things like that distracts from the core issues we are trying to solve together.

[hamburglar]

I give coderpad interviews all the time and absolutely do not expect them to be executable. If you write me executable code, great, but you’re probably wasting your time. We also have execution disabled in my org. It’s just a notepad that we both can see that kinda half-ass supports code highlighting and formatting. I hope I’m never asked to write executable code in it because as an editor, it’s terrible.

[dnautics]

IMO You should really reconsider disabling execution and just tell the candidate that executable is not expected. Writing tests and executing them is an extremely important part of my programming flow, and when I am presented with a tool that I expect to be able to actively test with, if I am unable to do so... it's "fuck you Facebook"-level frustrating.

I guess it's yours hiring process, so whatever, but you could probably be filtering out people with very good and desirable programming habits.

I've also had some serious problems with (senior) coworkers who "assert their code works" when it's riddled with bugs or flat out doesn't work, so maybe it's my trauma refected here

> I hope I’m never asked to write executable code in it because as an editor, it’s terrible.

Well, I typically offer coderpad for anyone who would rather not share their screen.

[hamburglar]

> IMO You should really reconsider disabling execution

Not my call; it’s an org-wide setting (we use coderpad with SSO that lets the company control some of the settings).

If someone suggested using their own IDE and screen sharing instead, I would 100% let them do it.

[ajkjk]

Strong disagree; every coderpad interview I've given or received specifically did _not_ write executable code, and that was either explicitly communicated or just assumed by everyone involved.

> Otherwise you might as well use Google docs. Coderpad has other useful features like syntax highlight, autocomplete (I think?), and the private interviewer notepad with timestamps.

[aqme28]

> Every whiteboard interview I have had has been like that, but the expectation with coderpad is that you write executable code.

I always say that isn't the case at the top of my interviews, because otherwise it's a handicap for people interviewing remote.

[kyawzazaw]

When interviewing for Facebook, I was made aware ahead that it won't be executable. Still used CoderPad.

[foobarian]

Whenever I use coderpad I make sure to mention the code execution to my applicants and give them a choice of using it vs. just pseudocode and collaborative editing. But most of the time people appreciate the feature and like using it.

[bigzyg33k]

when was this? I'm pretty sure facebook explicitly mention this in their preparation email now.

[dnautics]

Last October.