On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 06:37:05 +1000, James Mills wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 6:28 AM, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> If I had to wait 5 minutes while a candidate tried to solve this
>> problem I would not hire them.
>
> Yes you do raise a valid point. It should really only take you a mere
> few seconds or so to write a solution to this.
Yes, but the point is to come up with a solution that is *correct*, not
merely a solution. *wink*
Just the mere typing time will be "a few seconds or so", so you're
leaving zero time for actual thought, let alone running the code at least
once to test it.
Personally, I'd rather see how a potential hire *tests* his code than how
he writes it. Writing code is easy. Testing code is harder. Testing it
properly is harder still -- it's amazing how many people forget that it's
not just necessary to test the function on data that *works*, but also on
data that fails as well (unless, of course, you're happy with function
behaviour that is unspecified in the face of errors).
I also want to see when the coder thinks she's done. If I say "Write a
function that does fizzbuzz", does she assume I want *just* the function,
or does she ask questions like "Do you want documentation and tests? What
sort of tests?". Does she assume that because the fizzbuzz function is
small it doesn't need documentation or testing? The Fizzbuzz algorithm
itself is the simple part. If I'm hiring a coder, I care more about their
attitude to documentation and testing than their ability to code up a
tiny algorithm in five seconds time. I want to see if they are a careful
coder, or a cowboy.
> More over, it can be done in just a single line of Python.
>
> 7 if you're not very familiar with Python.
Or if you value readability over conserving newlines.
Some months ago I wrote a version of FizzBuzz. By the time I read the
description of the problem, re-read it to make sure I understood it and
looking for any hidden traps ("seems too simple to me, what have I
missed?"), wrote a first draft, tested it, fixed a silly typo, and then
tested it again, it took about 3-5 minutes. I don't believe I have
anything to be ashamed about that, especially not when I look at the
number of comments by people who claimed the exercise was so trivial that
they did it in ten seconds, AND GOT IT WRONG.
Then I added error checking, tests and documentation, and the whole
exercise took about 20 minutes. That was probably overkill, but I was
bored :)
(At least I didn't turn it into a class.)
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
