[ikiris]

If you've bombed an interview in a skillset that you've done productive work in, the fault is with the design of the interview. This doesn't mean that you won't be expected to skill up in the different set to pass those interviews, but don't take it personally either way.

As an example, almost no bit of coding work is done in an environment with no reference material, no autocompletion, no compiler feedback, and no debugger, yet many companies expect people to do whiteboard interviews with syntax and language features from memory.

[poulsbohemian]

That's exactly why so many of us get so frustrated with the state of technical interviews / technical hiring / HR at tech firms in general. The interviews seem designed as some kind of frat-like hazing gauntlet rather than a legitimate discussion / demonstration of how this professional could contribute to and benefit the organization.

[dzek69]

I like the just talking approach. The best jobs I had when the interview was just talk.

But on the other hand so many people totally lie about their experience I can't believe it. People tend to have misleading cvs and overexaggerate their responsibilities very often. It makes me sad, because we can't just hire and continue the project, we need to spend few months getting people into the project, "giving a chance", to finally discover they just can't code, until we finally find the right person.

[poulsbohemian]

I think we've all seen this scenario you describe... I'm not opposed at all to there being some code in an interview - assuming it is a coding role. Too often though the exercises seem to be designed as a "gotcha" or to show how "smart" the interview is, rather than to augment the discussion. Or, as others have pointed out, actually end up demonstrating incompetence on the part of the interviewer as they don't understand their own question or the possible alternative solutions to their question.

At least twice been invited to interview for roles that were not hands-on-keyboard roles, yet the entire interview process was coding activities. That's the kind of thing that drives me nuts, as it makes it obvious that the company doesn't even know what they want to hire. At least one of the times was a company that shows up on HN as a "darling", which makes me even angrier...

[13of40]

> misleading cvs

If you want a real chuckle, go look at the LinkedIn profiles of some of those "few-monthers" and take a look at how epic and groundbreaking their contribution was when they worked for you.

[jdthedisciple]

Tbh I disagree.

Just talking means a "talker" can bs his way through.

I ain't got nothing against a white board question as long as it is understood that syntax errors can obv happen but aren't the "point".

[13of40]

Whenever I interview vendors or contractors, I have a little bit of leeway from following company policy, so I sit them in front of a computer with Visual Studio and internet and tell them they can use whatever resources they want to solve the problem.

From the other side, I haven't had a technical interview for a few years, but back when I did, I eventually addressed the whiteboard thing by bringing a laptop and telling the interviewer that I suck at whiteboarding code, and I'd like to do it for real instead. I think I've tried that in three interview loops and gotten the job twice.