[jvanderbot]

If you're presented with a system that can be handled by one server and can discuss that architecture, but think they may want to hear about an AWS word salad, just say there's two approaches, discuss strengths and weaknesses for 2 minutes, and ask what they want to talk about. That is precisely the kind of thing people want from a co-worker.

[weavie]

Yes, a discussion of the tradeoffs of different solutions is exactly what I want to hear in an interview.

[thelittlenag]

I've now done probably close to 100 system design interviews. One of the main things I've looked for in candidates is their ability to identify, communicate, and discuss trade-offs. The next thing on my checklist is their ability to move forward, pick an option, and defend that option. Really nimble candidates will pivot, recognizing when to change approaches because requirements have changed.

The goal here is to see if the candidate understands the domain (generic distributed systems) well enough on their own. For more senior roles I look to make sure they can then communicate that understanding to a team, and then drive consensus around some approach.

[sgarland]

> For more senior roles I look to make sure they can then communicate that understanding to a team, and then drive consensus around some approach.

This is why I’m stuck at Senior lol. I can craft incredibly deep technical documents on why X is the preferred path, but when inevitably someone else counters with soft points like DX, I fall down. No, I don’t care that the optimal solution requires you to read documentation and understand it, instead of using whatever you’re used to. If you wanted to use that, why did you ask me to do a deep-dive into the problem?

[AnimalMuppet]

In the real world, the answer almost always is "it depends".

[hrimfaxi]

This only seems to be in software engineering. When I was told me wanted to evaluate a new task queue service, I asked what our constraints were. I was told to survey all options and present a roundup and ignore constraints. Contrast with something like, I don't know, building a house. Do architects consider all possible material choices for a given location, or do they instead limit their consideration to materials that would be suitable to the given environment?

Making the dependencies of "it depends" explicit is the whole point.

[bluGill]

Having built single family houses before I can tell you that architects consider only the choices they know. That is why were I live there are 1000 stick framed houses for every one built with something like SIP (structural insulated panels), or ICE (insulated concrete block) even though the others are similar cost to build with overall and have some useful advantages for the customer that often would make them a better deal for the homeowner long term.

This also means there are 100 builders in my area who only build stick frame houses and won't even talk to you if you want something else and only 1 or 2 who will even think about those other options. (they do compete with the other builders so costs are not unreasonable)

[the_af]

This tracks with my experience with architects (for home renovations): they use what they know, sometimes stubbornly so and even when I must point out it won't work out (e.g. materials inappropriate for the climate, inappropriate due to exposure to direct sunlight or water, obsession with visuals over practicality, etc).

I've dealt with enough architects by now to know this is the rule and not the exception.

[librasteve]

yes - today, in web, this is called react