When the OP gives any kind of examples of interviews gone bad, maybe we can discuss something meaningful. But the moment someone says they object to programming challenges that aren't "practical", that raises huge red flags. Too too too many people call simple programming demonstrations "irrelevant" and "impractical" and "not realistic" and "leetcode" and then proceed to show that their brains are mush, that they lack the talent for understanding code and what it's doing and why it was written and how to write it themselves. It's a meme at this point for people who call themselves software engineers to complain about being asked to write code because they're above it while simultaneously being terrible at it.
A far better approach is to talk through the design of a system - conceptual or previously worked on and ask questions about it.
Hard disagree. It's far too easy for people to talk about concepts without having a brain that understands code well. That's the difference between knowledge and talent. A talking approach may find knowledge. I'm looking for talent.
Comments
When the OP gives any kind of examples of interviews gone bad, maybe we can discuss something meaningful. But the moment someone says they object to programming challenges that aren't "practical", that raises huge red flags. Too too too many people call simple programming demonstrations "irrelevant" and "impractical" and "not realistic" and "leetcode" and then proceed to show that their brains are mush, that they lack the talent for understanding code and what it's doing and why it was written and how to write it themselves. It's a meme at this point for people who call themselves software engineers to complain about being asked to write code because they're above it while simultaneously being terrible at it.
Hard disagree. It's far too easy for people to talk about concepts without having a brain that understands code well. That's the difference between knowledge and talent. A talking approach may find knowledge. I'm looking for talent.