[Ancalagon]

The signal for who is a good developer is so unbelievably low for a leetcode interview. I do feel like some codebases have been made unmaintainable because of the "fail fast, break often" mentality that I feel like is taking over things. In the interviews I give I touch on many other aspects of code design, testing, and review especially for senior candidates.

Obviously its not bad enough yet to warrant changing the process though at top companies, so maybe I'm the one who is interviewing in the wrong ways.

[alibero]

What I’m seeing is that some big tech companies these days (including my own) have standardized rubrics [1] for leetcode-style questions that focus on a few areas (like DS&A, communication and coding style) so I can’t really give any marks for these other positive behaviours.

There’s some benefits to rubrics (reduces differences between interviewers and is more fair to minority candidates from what I’ve seen) but I’m it definitely impacts or senior hiring.

Unfortunately there are also so many experienced developers in the hiring pipeline who actually can’t code, so doing at least one coding interview seems inevitable. I’d give less “tricky” questions but, like rubrics, the questions are standardized too :/

[1] https://blog.tryexponent.com/google-coding-interview-rubric/...

[Ancalagon]

I do give coding exercises in my interviews, but they’re usually more open ended and don’t require understanding tricks. If there’s a DS&A portion it’s usually something I’d expect to be used on the job (e.g. a map or array list, not a BST). I also touch on things like SQL and API design. These things feel like they’re hardly hit on in most tech interviews.