Why Programmers Are Growing Resistant to Interview Coding Tests

Answer 1

A CFD developer recounts being asked to implement a binary‑tree sort during an interview for an industrial‑software position; he failed because he never writes sorting code, preferring library calls. The interview focused on textbook data‑structure algorithms despite his expertise in domain‑specific methods such as SIMPLE, PISO, BiCGSTAB, GMRES, polynomial preconditioning, and Delaunay triangulation.

Answer 2

"Because it’s useless." In production, the primary metrics are stability and timely delivery. Optimizing an algorithm or SQL for marginal performance gains can introduce bugs, whereas upgrading hardware is often safer. The author questions whether custom sorting beats the standard library’s sort() and notes that big‑tech firms still suffer from buggy code.

Answer 3

Interview requirements are described as solving a hard problem within 45 minutes, delivering bug‑free, clean code. Candidates often prepare by repeatedly solving problem sets, pretending not to recognize the question, offering a sub‑optimal solution first, then revealing a flash‑inspired optimal answer. The author observes that professors may spend years to find the optimal solution, publishing pseudo‑code and real code, while interviewers treat the process as a sham that benefits companies seeking cheap, test‑driven assessments.

Answer 4

The author shares personal job‑hunting experiences, expressing frustration with “stupid interview questions.” He describes various interview styles—from small companies with absurd multi‑stack questions to large firms that mix project discussion with basic Java type questions—highlighting mismatched expectations, salary negotiations, and frequent offer cancellations.

Answer 5

As a former Baidu interviewer, the author notes that written tests are rarely used in his own hiring process because they assess candidates too narrowly. He argues that real work is open: developers can Google solutions, and the key is learning ability and problem‑solving, not memorized algorithms. Many companies recycle online test questions, allowing candidates who simply brush up to score high, while genuine talent may be filtered out. The result is that capable engineers fail written tests while opportunistic candidates pass.

The concluding commentary warns that companies may use interview tests to create information asymmetry and profit from it, advising candidates to keep thorough records of communications and evidence in case of disputes.