The home of the haikulator

 

Links

My Stand-up & gigs
The Coding Craftsman
BurberryAndBroccoli
MarkInventions

The Musical!
Incredible Productions

apostrophell
backlash
incredible
haiku


Previous Posts

I Didn't Make A Waterfall
Not Aaah
Don't Lie On Your CV
Sometimes Irony Can Be So Ironic
I'm Having a Bad Day
Nearly Clever
Dust! Anybody?
Leeched
Aching
Bathtime Fun

Blog Archives

January 1970
October 2001
November 2001
December 2001
January 2002
February 2002
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
August 2009
September 2009
January 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
October 2011
December 2011
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
May 2014
July 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
July 2016
August 2017

Global Domination

Locations of visitors to this page

Sunday, February 11

The Lost Friday

I didn't have time to write anything on Friday. I'm not quite sure why I didn't have the time, since my memories of being busy on the day don't extend to the reason why. Perhaps the work was so engrossing that it stole both my attention and my memory.

In fact, I do remember two notable events on Friday. One was that I think we made a breakthrough on discovering what it is I'm supposed to be making next. This is very good. Secondly, I attended a job interview. I was in the role of interviewer, rather than interviewee. I'm doing this a lot, and I find it both deeply depressing and strangely uplifting. I'll explain.

In a technical job interview situation, it's important to establish whether the person you're interviewing really knows their stuff. Now, the truth is that you can sit most intelligent people down and get them to do quasi-intelligent things, given enough time. With computers, there's enough possibility for trial and error that any imbecile can knock together something which has resembles a success. However, if you're trying to recruit people to join a team, it's important that the person you're dealing with is compatible with the team in terms of ability, and can communicate about shared knowledge in a way that's easily understood.

On technical interviews, we first make the candidate sit a test. Some people do poorly on the test and don't get an interview. Some do well on the test, but then prove to have been just lucky. There are some, though I'm yet to meet one, who do brilliantly on the test and then just ARE brilliant in an interview. Bear in mind, that I've never once set out to prove that a candidate is useless. Far from it. I like to cajole the candidate into saying things which I agree with so I can like them. Despite my best efforts, some recent interviews have left me feeling empty inside.

The truth is that we just want someone who really knows enough to join in a group of people who tend to know enough too. Then we can all get along, using our shared sense of knowing enough, and our shared language for expressing what we do and don't know. We use a simple diagram and very rarely do we use practices or patterns that you couldn't read out of a university-level textbook. Obviously, experience means a lot in this field. However, at interview, I'm expecting someone to be able to reel off stuff I remember learning in first and second year at university.

It shouldn't be difficult. I know that sometimes I'm trying to backseat drive the interview. I'm trying to give so much help to the candidate that all they need to say is one word and I'll be happy that they "get it". Of course, if they can't see what I'm getting at, then I'm making things impossible. But we're talking about the basics here. In some ways, maybe I'm making this hard for people who are basically clueless and really easy for the right person to shine in the interview. I don't know.

I remember my own interview, which was presided over by the person with whom I now interview, and another technically proficient colleague of his. At the time, I found their questions both frustrating AND easy. They were frustrating, because I'd be halfway through my explanation of something, and I was trying to give solid textbook explanations, and then they'd ask me the sort of question to which my instinctive reaction was "What? Don't you even know that? Surely it's a given?". At the time, I knew that they were asking the questions in order to test whether I knew it clearly or superficially, and to test whether I could hold my own in that situation. In some ways, it was fun. In fact, I think it was the interview I enjoyed the most of all I took, even though it had a difficult technical test before it started (which I guess I must have passed).

On Friday we had someone in from France. On paper he was well-qualified and fresh. Despite his low test score. Very low. We decided to go ahead with the interview, given that he had, on the face of it, travelled from France to be with us. Perhaps his experience wasn't best suited to the exact test we'd given him. We tried to make him get through the interview stage. I liked the guy. I think it's fair to say that most interviews are determined largely on personality. Sure there's an element of ability in choosing the right person for the job, but it's a bit like buying a house; you imagine yourself and your stuff in the house. So with interviews, you end up imagining the person on your team, working with you, doing what's necessary. Personality is important.

Yet, despite liking the guy, despite the cliches about not liking the French (in fact, I think I liked him because he was French), it wasn't enough. This guy didn't "get it". To define how much he didn't get it, I can put it like this. There's an early chapter in many books on programming which describes how a particular technique might be applied to a drawing program - one which puts different shapes on a piece of paper. This is a good example, which illustrates many of the techniques we hold dear. We started getting the candidate to design a solution to this problem. Given that I'm an ex-computer-graphics-programmer, I asked a simple question - "How would you get your program to calculate the bounding rectangle of all the shapes?". Now, I realise that there may have been a language barrier here, English to French, though I felt the conversation wasn't obstructed. I also drew a picture of what I meant. I also used the word "rectangle" a lot. What I expected was some sort of description of how all the rectangles around all the shapes could be somehow combined to make the enclosing rectangle. I expected some description of how to solve the problem that each shape's bounding rectangle would have to be calculated differently. In short, I expected a professional computer programmer's answer.

Maybe I expected too much. At one point our candidate was talking about a rectangle having four values (top, left, right, bottom), which is correct, and I suggested maybe modeling those four values as a "rectangle" in a separate bit of code. In truth, this is the "right" way to do it, especially since there's almost always some existing "rectangle" thing you can use from somewhre. The so-called "programmer" told me that it was a bad idea and unnecessary.

There will be three groups of reactions to the above:
  • Programmers who know their stuff will go "What!?"
  • People who don't understand programming will probably try to stifle a yawn, assuming they've even read this far
  • People who do understand it, but don't give a damn, will feel like they may have missed the point, or just feel like I'm being all geeky again
All I'm trying to say is that there are people who have a knack for programming and people who don't. Both of these groups of people seem to manage to find work somewhere and given the salary expectations of some of them, they're managing to both find work and be overpaid for their abject ignorance.

A few paragraphs ago, I said I find it depressing when I meet these poor candidates. It's a shame. I can't believe people can get through university, probably with better degrees than I managed, and yet not know chapter 2 of the "book for beginners". However, I find it uplifting too. I do understand chapter 2. I reckon, I probably get most of chapter 3. Not only that, but I'm fair minded enough to interview people in a positive way, and yet not just go on personality. That's got to be a job worth doing.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

All content ©2001 - 2012 Ashley Frieze