top | item 40762766

(no title)

barfbagginus | 1 year ago

You can see algorithmic aversion every day on HN, in the form of those who complain about the algorithmic portion of the technical interview.

They act as if the only way to get algorithmic knowledge is to grind specific examples, when really if they would read through Knuth they'd be fine.

These are people who see algorithmic knowledge as the bane of their careers rather than seeing algorithms as:

1) a great way to add value to resource constrained projects

2) a trivially simple and easy way to signal programming abilities, letting you easily breeze through the interview

I seriously would hate having to work with one of those who take pride in how little computer science they know, and because I run a math and computational geometry heavy organization, I will never hire them. But I would estimate that algorithmically and mathematically averse coders form the majority of coders.

discuss

order

Paul-Craft|1 year ago

cough cough I'm choking on the smug here!

First of all, nobody "read[s] through Knuth." [0] (I couldn't find the reference, but I recall a story about Bill Gates telling Knuth he had "read his books," to which Knuth replied that he believed Gates was lying.)

Second, the way the "algorithmic portion of the technical interview" is generally constituted currently is beyond flawed. Depending on your perspective, you can either pass it by memorizing 5 or 6 algorithms and re-using them over and over; or, it's a completely unrealistic test of anyone's ability to think about and work with algorithms and data, because there is no such thing in the real world as a 45 minute deadline. Of course, you can certainly argue that it's not intended to be a test of one's ability to work with algorithms and data, but, rather, an IQ test of sorts. But, then, we have companies that are literally giving candidates IQ tests now, so, why not just drop the pretense?

---

[0]: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-gates-loves-donald-knut...

namaria|1 year ago

You and GP sound like you haven't read the article and are using heuristics to comment on what you can infer from the title. Maybe you should have used a better algorithm there bud