varsock

Valid point. Again for the sake of discussion, technology evolves quickly. New tools are made out of the shortcoming of others. If docker evolves and a new tool - Kocker - is born, AI will need training data from best practices which should be generated by people.

This could unfold in many ways. For one there could a small group of people pushing technology forward. But people will need to be around to create requirements, which takes experience.

More likely, majority of engineers will likely just move up to a higher level of abstraction, letting new tools do the lower layer stuff. And any innovations in the lower levels of abstraction will be done by a small group of people with niche skills (take CPUs for example). This is the trend we saw historically. Assembly -> compilers -> lower languages -> interpreted languages -> scaling bare metal systems -> distributed systems -> virtual machines -> automation -> micro services etc etc

I agree with you and share the same opinions.

For discussion sake I will add that, using AI I have became so fast at creating "units of code" or restructuring. I ask it to solve a narrow narrow scope and introduce constraints (like conditional variable and which parameters, initial conditions). And it does. I have the experience validate by reading and to piece together the units of code but now my productivity near tripled.

I don't write comments anymore. I write what I neeed, ask it to comment the function, maybe I'll add something that is project specific.

And getting started with new technologies is easier as long as, like you said, keep the scope small.

AI will not replace programmers. Programmers that use AI will replace programmers who don't.

I feel like this is a class action/fraud lawsuit a freshman in law school can win.

"Advertised as 7 years support as a selling point over competators to boost sales, didn't follow through"

Google does kill off products, seemingly all the time, but they don't advertise long term support for them.

Plus, they won't kill off android or android hardware. If they do, android has a different problem.

except when searching for an address, which sucks hard :D

but using two apps hasn't been that much of an a inconvenience tbh. OMaps rocks!

7 years ago when I started my career, My first project we sat down and designed the program and interfaces.

Today, we implement features using best practices, never sitting down to design and end up accumulating technical debt that we don't have funds or time to go back and fix.

Time to market is proportional to time to obsoletence. We don't design for longevity anymore :(

my experience with hackerrank is a company will use hackerrank platform to facilitate the online assessment - NOT look at someone "hacker rank" like you mentioned.

Candidates follows a link a company sent them and gives them an in-browser IDE to solve a problem. The platform records keystrokes, mouse events (like if you left the tab) etc etc. Then when you submit your code it is complied, executed in a sandbox, and tested with test cases. Based on which test cases pass, the execution time and memory usage, hacker rank will generate a report and fwd to the hiring team.

What I was saying in the above comment is if you had the right idea but your code didn't compile or failed the test case, it's as if you failed entirely. No hiring teams sits there and reads the code. Not even garuanteed that an engineer is reviewing your submission.

Hackerrank (to my knowledge) does not parse the code to determine your knowledge of algorithms, data structures, etc etc, it inferes it from which test cases passed and their execution time amd memory usage.

I agree with you. practically speaking, candidates don't have a way to tell if the problem they are solving applies to the role, especially when bringing tour skillset to a new-ish domain.

That being said, hackerrank generates a report based on if you pass or fail. Hiring managers tend to only look at the metrics in the report instead judging the candidate based on their approach to the problem. And for code that doesn't run, the metrics are nearly all 0. Not to mention there is no fucking debugger to step through the code and catch the 1 off index error that is common to make when you're under pressure.

Anyway I'm beginning to rant. There are a lot of things that should be addressed but as long as someone else can solve it and the candidate pool is large, there is no point to optimize the selection process (from a company point of view). They feel as if they are getting the best candidate because they assume better experienced == better chance of passing

when you say whiteboarding do you include programming tests or take home problems?

I stay away from FAANG like companies but my experience is everyone asks them. I'm curious what kind of roles don't - how can I keep an eye out for them?

fantasize of all the ways I can hand in my resignation.

Then 3 months go by and still no offer, lower the bar and fantasize of all the ways I can hand in my resignation - but nicer

my go to is "I have a very broad exposure in my current role but im mostly interested in XYZ and want to specialize in it"

where XYZ is the subject matter for the role you're interviewing for.

I try not to give my real reasons, especially if negative

But if people want to complain about the irrelevance of reversing a list or describing two different approaches to balanced trees... they'd probably complain more about being tested on generators and RC frequency response in low pass filters even if you only have to take it once.

LOL! absolutely.

I think the skills tested on tech interviews are important, though; At least fundamentals. I don't encounter many people that consider time and space complexity of a unit of code (big O notation) and that's unfortunate.

Data structs and their method for language built-ins are already optimized so I get that most people just use them but man, I see so many developers not even choose the correct structures. That includes me until I started leetcoding for a new job after 4 years of professionally work.

But of course, this needs to stay in reason. Asking Brainteasers and optimizations like dynamic programming are dick moves. I don't want my team to prematurely optimize and make our code base complex just cause.

thanks for sharing, didn't know they got rid of it - makes sense though

from the same article:

if the boards aren’t regulating the [software engineering profession], it’s tough to get people to take the exam

Now middle managers and HR are regulating the software engineering profession -_-