[Kranar]

This is so weird. Someone self-studies a pretty challenging book on data structures and algorithms and you don't think that makes them curious and motivated to the point that you'd not feel comfortable working with them?

What do you consider to be curiosity and motivation if not someone taking the time and effort to work through something like on their own? The way someone smiles?

I feel like too many people in this profession put down the hard work and effort people go through to study this kind of stuff, as if there's some kind of insecurity towards those who know data structures and algorithms, are good at leetcode, have side projects.

It's like all that matters to people is whether someone comes across as a nice guy they'd like to have a beer with and talks nicely.

[jhanschoo]

> Someone self-studies a pretty challenging book on data structures and algorithms and you don't think that makes them curious and motivated to the point that you'd not feel comfortable working with them?

What you learn in DS&A is nearly orthogonal to many tasks a programmer does in an enterprise setting including

- writing code and documentation optimized for readability by multiple audiences with varying degrees of familiarity - learning and integrating and interfacing with other systems - modeling business constraints - working and tracking project completion in a team

It's not the passion regarding DS&A that raises yellow flags, it's the lack of awareness (though that may be OP's omission) that DS&A familiarity is only one aspect of programming.

[GuardianCaveman]

Maybe he means rote memorization and studying the answers to the test rather than someone who is actually building and tinkering and wanting to understand how things work and apply that knowledge.

[quanticle]

Exactly. When I hear that someone has done the same algorithms book three times, I think of the Brazilian physics students that Richard Feynman encountered [1]:

    After a lot of investigation, I finally figured out that the students had
    memorized everything, but they didn’t know what anything meant. When they
    heard “light that is reflected from a medium with an index,” they didn’t
    know that it meant a material such as water. They didn’t know that the
    “direction of the light” is the direction in which you see something when
    you’re looking at it, and so on. Everything was entirely memorized, yet
    nothing had been translated into meaningful words. So if I asked, “What is
    Brewster’s Angle?” I’m going into the computer with the right keywords. But
    if I say, “Look at the water,” nothing happens – they don’t have anything
    under “Look at the water”!

Someone who's ground through an algorithms textbook three times, but doesn't have significant project experience is like a physics student who can name every equation, but cannot calculate the polarization angle of light reflected off water.

[1]: https://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education

[quanticle]

    Someone self-studies a pretty challenging book on data structures and
    algorithms and you don't think that makes them curious and motivated to the
    point that you'd not feel comfortable working with them?

Not really, no. There are plenty of grinders who will pick the most difficult book and study it, not because they think it will make them better at solving problems, but because they think it will elevate them above their peers. Why you study is as important as what you study.