> Tech writers are certainly asked to create technical documents to demonstrate their skills.
In an interview? Not that I've ever seen. Reviewing a portfolio is not what we're talking about.
> Chefs might be a good model too; it absolutely the case that before hiring a chef they have to plan a menu and cook.
If a chef is expected to plan a menu and cook as part of their interview process, they are going after a very high end job. They know the kind of food that the restaurant serves. They are provided with the tools, equipment, and ample prep time to properly consider their course of action. And let's not pretend that every chef has to go through a live cooking trial for every job, or that most high end chef's would not throw a hissy-fit and walk out the door if you assumed that they would show up to an interview ready to plan a menu and cook a meal.
---
"what? You've never heard of fizzbuzz? It's a simple game that..." cue a terrible explanation of the game missing key requirements that the interviewer expects the interviewee to just know.
So now the developer not only has to come up with a set of code under pressure, they have to do so with a set of unclear requirements. And what the heck, why not take away their daily development environment to ensure that they are more uncomfortable and let's have them do it on a whiteboard so they have no hope of resolving simple syntax errors that arise because this particular developer floats between four different languages at his current job.
What you see as a game to weed out a littany of liars and cheats is seen entirely differently from a job-seekers perspective. "I have 15 years experience building complex systems and this jackass wants me to write kiddie code on a whiteboard to prove what, exactly?"
I'd rather not work for somebody who operated off of the assumption that I was a liar and a cheat upon our first meeting. The only reason people subject themselves to this kind of treatment is because they _need_ a paycheck.
I didn't say that any given person was a liar or cheat. It seems clear to me that some significant fraction of the interviewing population is and I cannot tell the difference just by looking at you. So I must do something to weed out the liars and cheats from you.
I prefer to do something objectively testable and easy enough that most programmers worth hiring should excel at it. I also do what I can to reduce stress, I explain that I am human and make mistakes too. I explain that would prefer a two way dialog to a battery of questions. I also try to explain that I think requirements always have some vagueness and sometimes need clarification.
I am curious why I should be lenient on someone unable to seek clarification on requirements? Would you want want to work with someone who couldn't seek help on requirements? I have seen that person and at the beginning of my career I was briefly that person, it is not productive and can a sink project if that person is trusted too much.
You know... I re-read my post early this morning and I thought... "that was way more hostile than necessary". But it was too late to edit. Sorry about that.
I think digging my heels in further at this point is making my opinion appear stronger than it is.
In an interview? Not that I've ever seen. Reviewing a portfolio is not what we're talking about.
> Chefs might be a good model too; it absolutely the case that before hiring a chef they have to plan a menu and cook.
If a chef is expected to plan a menu and cook as part of their interview process, they are going after a very high end job. They know the kind of food that the restaurant serves. They are provided with the tools, equipment, and ample prep time to properly consider their course of action. And let's not pretend that every chef has to go through a live cooking trial for every job, or that most high end chef's would not throw a hissy-fit and walk out the door if you assumed that they would show up to an interview ready to plan a menu and cook a meal.
--- "what? You've never heard of fizzbuzz? It's a simple game that..." cue a terrible explanation of the game missing key requirements that the interviewer expects the interviewee to just know.
So now the developer not only has to come up with a set of code under pressure, they have to do so with a set of unclear requirements. And what the heck, why not take away their daily development environment to ensure that they are more uncomfortable and let's have them do it on a whiteboard so they have no hope of resolving simple syntax errors that arise because this particular developer floats between four different languages at his current job.
What you see as a game to weed out a littany of liars and cheats is seen entirely differently from a job-seekers perspective. "I have 15 years experience building complex systems and this jackass wants me to write kiddie code on a whiteboard to prove what, exactly?"
I'd rather not work for somebody who operated off of the assumption that I was a liar and a cheat upon our first meeting. The only reason people subject themselves to this kind of treatment is because they _need_ a paycheck.