[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".