[tubby12345]

>I can assure you, 100% without a doubt, that this is where the vast majority of developers are.

cool? then that majority doesn't generate the same value as those that do and so they shouldn't get paid as such? i already asserted that?

>Including people working on the most cutting edge software.

ctrl+f to doubt that you know what people working on cutting edge software do. i, on the other hand, do have some experience on cutting edge compiler tech and it is absolutely what i've described. sorry not sorry.

>can regurgitate this is because they just re-read their course book yesterday and they expect algorithmic problems.

great. i'm glad. they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding. either way i'll hire them over someone that thinks it's worthless being conversant in the algorithm.

[bradlys]

The entitlement here is huge. Jesus Christ.

Bro - I’ve made a 7 figure TC, delivered 8+ value, and I still don’t think LC is worth a damn. It has little to no impact on day to day.

But - ok - you know - think that algorithms in software are literally the end all be all. You have some arbitrary standard where I need to remember how to implement fusion trees on the fly. It’s utterly ridiculous.

99%+ of software eng (even the super duper highly paid shit - remember I’m the dude who was making more than a million/yr) is boring ass pipes and glue. You don’t need advanced DS&A. In fact - if I saw some of the shit that I know gets advanced runtimes and gets some good performance metrics - I’d probably rip that shit out because it’s not maintainable by enough people and performance doesn’t fucking matter 99% of the time. Sure - that 1% is interesting but it’s like once a year you go, “huh, might need to crack out the ol’ stopwatch!”

Gatekeeping like a motherfucker. Holy shit.

[tokipin]

> they're prepared for tasks being assigned to them that exercise those skills and by the end of the half they'll have a deep understanding rather than just a wrote understanding.

I think it's entirely possible to memorize algorithms superficially. These types of interviews are selecting for exactly the type of person that is good at that rote memorization, and are otherwise selecting for a very narrow type of skillset.

It's unreasonable to not expect pathological outcomes with such a rigid system, especially when some people are themselves specialized for the ability to game social systems. Nothing is free. There are always trade offs when choosing one approach over another.