November 9, 2009 at 8:25 am
Totally agree. A good interview is balanced and looks for the skills that you need, having a single question that disqualifies is rarely a good thing. There are exceptions; requiring a security clearance, ability to travel, etc). Beyond that, it's rare to have the case where you have five candidates that max the interview and you get to pick the best one, often you're in the position of just picking one that comes closest.
The problem, and strength, of litmus tests is that they reflect the interviewers bias. If you think you can't be a great whatever without knowing the answer, you're building a very specific view of your team. Have a litmus question or two in mind? Go apply it to those you know that you would (or did) hire, would they pass the test?
I know Knuth, I've read Code Complete, but I wouldn't say I'm a great candidate to be a developer. But at least I wouldn't be disqualified just because Im a DBA!
November 9, 2009 at 8:30 am
@Gift I am afraid that you are missing the point regarding the likes of Knuth. His work on algorithms is being used daily by each and every developer. Your changes appear to be glossing over this fact. Their work is relevant today.
With regards to all these peoples works though, many of the papers and books have been re-presented (sometimes the original authors referenced, often not). Many people learn about the principles, algorithms, applications and practices etc of these leading lights. Not everyone that has learnt these things knows the source. If they were writing an academic paper then they would have to but they are not.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 9, 2009 at 8:46 am
Gary Istvan Varga (11/9/2009)
@Gift I am afraid that you are missing the point regarding the likes of Knuth. His work on algorithms is being used daily by each and every developer. Your changes appear to be glossing over this fact. Their work is relevant today.With regards to all these peoples works though, many of the papers and books have been re-presented (sometimes the original authors referenced, often not). Many people learn about the principles, algorithms, applications and practices etc of these leading lights. Not everyone that has learnt these things knows the source. If they were writing an academic paper then they would have to but they are not.
Gary,
I am not missing the point Knuth algorithms are used in languages and I am just saying the creators of those languages are also important. Marc Andreessen whose Mosaic is the base code of all browsers is not important but the creator of Mozilla is important is what I cannot accept.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
November 9, 2009 at 9:06 am
This is another example of the Idiot In Charge syndrome. Having read a specific article has nothing to do with your ability as a developer.
November 9, 2009 at 9:28 am
Gift Peddie (11/9/2009)
Gary Istvan Varga (11/9/2009)
@Gift I am afraid that you are missing the point regarding the likes of Knuth. His work on algorithms is being used daily by each and every developer. Your changes appear to be glossing over this fact. Their work is relevant today.With regards to all these peoples works though, many of the papers and books have been re-presented (sometimes the original authors referenced, often not). Many people learn about the principles, algorithms, applications and practices etc of these leading lights. Not everyone that has learnt these things knows the source. If they were writing an academic paper then they would have to but they are not.
Gary,
I am not missing the point Knuth algorithms are used in languages and I am just saying the creators of those languages are also important. Marc Andreessen whose Mosaic is the base code of all browsers is not important but the creator of Mozilla is important is what I cannot accept.
Gift,
Time to agree to disagree. I don't think either of us are the sort to have a flame war and we clearly have differing opinions.
Best regards,
Gary
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
November 9, 2009 at 9:29 am
I don't think the article says that reading the article makes you a good developer. It's saying that not reading it makes you bad, or not reading about that person makes you bad.
November 9, 2009 at 9:31 am
I still disagree, Phil.
Not knowing Jimi Hendrix, or Knuth, in no way means that you don't care about your craft (music or programming, respectively). Not knowing the work itself is an issue, but knowing who it was that developed the work is history, not knowledge of that field.
I do believe that we ought to study these things, but now having someone aware of the original creator does not mean they are a lesser skilled individual.
November 9, 2009 at 9:43 am
Whew! If it weren't for the fact that I'm enough of a geezer to remember Knuth and Thompson I'd have failed that one. 😉
At least this interview test has the advantage of being vaguely relevant. Most of the Cunning Psychological Tests devised by HR people with too much time on their hands have zero, zip, nada to do with the position in question.
Robb
November 9, 2009 at 9:51 am
Gift,
Time to agree to disagree. I don't think either of us are the sort to have a flame war and we clearly have differing opinions.
Best regards,
Gary
Gary,
Yep I agree but you can send me binaries you have created with algorithm without base language in application layer development and we will agree. In the meantime Jim Grey and Anders Hejlsberg have created engineering that could replace the existing distributed application development on the Microsoft platform so I am saying their contribution is equally important.
All browsers are modified Marc Andreessen code only in America he will be less important than the people who modified his code.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
November 9, 2009 at 10:42 am
Steve Jones - Editor (11/9/2009)
I still disagree, Phil.Not knowing Jimi Hendrix, or Knuth, in no way means that you don't care about your craft (music or programming, respectively). Not knowing the work itself is an issue, but knowing who it was that developed the work is history, not knowledge of that field.
I do believe that we ought to study these things, but now having someone aware of the original creator does not mean they are a lesser skilled individual.
That's actually a good point. There are more than a handful of classically trained musicians who have not heard of Jimi Hendrix. Now, they won't get a spot in a rock band requiring guitar, but then again, do they really need to know who he is to play Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, etc.? No. If a modern composer has riffed off of some of Hendrix's creativity in a composition they are to play, the conductor should be able to coax what is needed out of that classically trained musician without that musician having to go and listen to Hendrix's body of work. So in that case, the analogy fails.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
November 9, 2009 at 10:45 am
Quoting on the site did not seem to work properly for a particular post (quoting the wrong one, then fails on submit)
So here is my reply on Phil Factor, the old fashioned way 😉
I sense an intellectual background from you, so let me work on that assumption and do my story.
To judge the world only through the lens that shaped your own knowledge is restricting, others will have gained their knowledge in other ways and if I had to choose someone that has it form a book and someone that has it from his own, I will choose the latter every time. What for example would Knuth have had to answer when he was still unknown, what shaped him? I don't think it was because him reading some books from the “masters” in his early years.
As for his book, I read it somewhere in the early 90s I believe, but it never really got to me (still own my copy). Personally I found it hard to digest due to the chosen representations, making even things I knew in-depth look more complex then what they really are. As such I found that the book could not compete with the other sources of information around that time. Mostly programming magazines and several books of other writers. A very good example and by far my favorite is "Zen of Assembly Language" by Michael Abrash. To make a point, I remembered the book and everything I learned from it, but had to look up the Authors name!!!
Also I worked a few times with highly educated people and without exception their "abilities" were limited due to unneeded formal thinking worsened by a lack of understanding of what happens under the hood. Compare this to many any self educated (especially assembly language) programmers from that era that did not have a formal background. They will know when developing a solution in a higher level language what can perform well, what the hidden costs are and take parameters into consideration that formal trained people are mostly unaware of. Think of locality, memory access patterns, memory allocation and other forms of potential overhead.
And really, in most programming work it is hardly ever math that matters, even advanced only algorithms are a rare thing. It is more about being knowing your tools, be accurate, use common sense, be clever at times, be organized in your work and have and maintain a clear view of the goal and its associated problems that need solving (awareness). As such I always get slightly boiling blood when I see yet again a programming challenge that is math oriented...meaning you need math more than what makes for a good programmer.
I always think….there we go again, just call it a math challenge instead of a programming challenge 🙂
November 9, 2009 at 10:46 am
Gary Istvan Varga (11/9/2009)
Gift Peddie (11/9/2009)
Gary Istvan Varga (11/9/2009)
@Gift I am afraid that you are missing the point regarding the likes of Knuth. His work on algorithms is being used daily by each and every developer. Your changes appear to be glossing over this fact. Their work is relevant today.With regards to all these peoples works though, many of the papers and books have been re-presented (sometimes the original authors referenced, often not). Many people learn about the principles, algorithms, applications and practices etc of these leading lights. Not everyone that has learnt these things knows the source. If they were writing an academic paper then they would have to but they are not.
Gary,
I am not missing the point Knuth algorithms are used in languages and I am just saying the creators of those languages are also important. Marc Andreessen whose Mosaic is the base code of all browsers is not important but the creator of Mozilla is important is what I cannot accept.
Gift,
Time to agree to disagree. I don't think either of us are the sort to have a flame war and we clearly have differing opinions.
Best regards,
Gary
I'm going to have to agree with Gift on this one. What the OP of that blog is basically saying is that by choosing a book that only selects 15, and those 15 are your critical names, then you are saying that it's important to know someone who has a derivative work but not the originator. But see, without the originator, you don't have the guy with derivative work. And that's Gift's point.
Or to put in a more understandable context... we say it's important to know the guys who developed jet aircraft but we don't think it's important to know the Wright brothers when it comes to knowing about aircraft. Which, by using that book as the litmus test, is what the OP is saying to do.
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley
November 9, 2009 at 11:39 am
K. Brian Kelley (11/9/2009)
Gary Istvan Varga (11/9/2009)
Gift Peddie (11/9/2009)
Gary Istvan Varga (11/9/2009)
@Gift I am afraid that you are missing the point regarding the likes of Knuth. His work on algorithms is being used daily by each and every developer. Your changes appear to be glossing over this fact. Their work is relevant today.With regards to all these peoples works though, many of the papers and books have been re-presented (sometimes the original authors referenced, often not). Many people learn about the principles, algorithms, applications and practices etc of these leading lights. Not everyone that has learnt these things knows the source. If they were writing an academic paper then they would have to but they are not.
Gary,
I am not missing the point Knuth algorithms are used in languages and I am just saying the creators of those languages are also important. Marc Andreessen whose Mosaic is the base code of all browsers is not important but the creator of Mozilla is important is what I cannot accept.
Gift,
Time to agree to disagree. I don't think either of us are the sort to have a flame war and we clearly have differing opinions.
Best regards,
Gary
I'm going to have to agree with Gift on this one. What the OP of that blog is basically saying is that by choosing a book that only selects 15, and those 15 are your critical names, then you are saying that it's important to know someone who has a derivative work but not the originator. But see, without the originator, you don't have the guy with derivative work. And that's Gift's point.
Or to put in a more understandable context... we say it's important to know the guys who developed jet aircraft but we don't think it's important to know the Wright brothers when it comes to knowing about aircraft. Which, by using that book as the litmus test, is what the OP is saying to do.
Thanks Brian that is the point I am trying to get across.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
November 9, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Heh... this reminds me of how an interview for a history teacher might go....
Question #1. What was the name of the big, supposedly unsinkable ship that hit an iceberg in the North Atlantic and sunk?
Question #2. How many people were aboard?
Question #3. Name them. 😛
You'd miss out on a lot of great history teachers that way.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
November 9, 2009 at 3:03 pm
1) Titanic
2) a lot
3) The people that were lost on the Titanic. There I've named them creatively, so perhaps I can have a job in the English department?
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 64 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply