This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
- # admin-announcements (2)
- # beginners (27)
- # boot (85)
- # cider (24)
- # cljs-dev (20)
- # cljsrn (16)
- # clojure (73)
- # clojure-brasil (2)
- # clojure-czech (152)
- # clojure-dusseldorf (7)
- # clojure-france (3)
- # clojure-japan (1)
- # clojure-norway (1)
- # clojure-poland (7)
- # clojure-russia (140)
- # clojure-uk (7)
- # clojurescript (66)
- # cursive (20)
- # datomic (8)
- # emacs (7)
- # events (1)
- # hoplon (325)
- # jobs (2)
- # jobs-discuss (69)
- # leiningen (3)
- # off-topic (6)
- # om (48)
- # onyx (82)
- # parinfer (1)
- # planck (10)
- # re-frame (53)
- # reagent (8)
- # ring (103)
- # untangled (13)
- # yada (14)
Hi, anyone ever had to print the fibonacci numbers up to n during an interview or saw people doing it?
Some questions, if you dont mind: 1. Do you have a diploma in cs? 2. How long did you take? 3. Did you solve it recursive or implerative? 4. Would you hire somone that did not solve it (for whatever reasons, stress, knowledge...)?
I had one applicant today who failed doing it. I just wonder what the reasons might be. He has a proven record of implementing things with spring, JBoss, developing interfaces, transforming data, using JAXB and some more stuff. I wonder why he failed that test.
@jan.zy: Is there an easy way to use Binet's formula on a computer and not lose precision?
@jan.zy: E.g. a Python expression gives me
190392490709135.44 for 70th Fibonacci number.
@jan.zy: Trivial implementation on double precision IEEE754 starts to lose precision at fib(69).
We did not hire the last person to fail the fibonacci test, but that was for lots of other reasons
Not obviously. We solved it together at the end, and he was very open about it. I just cannot get a hand on it.
A proven record of “developing interfaces, transforming data” seems way more important than a silly test to me
btw, why do you ask people to implement fibonacci? for me it’s a minus for a company for not being creative enough: - we can safely assume that you’ll never need to know fibonacci series in day-to-day work. - it’s asked so often that many candidates just write the code straight out of their memory
@jan.zy: It's a good way to filter out 95% of candidates (this is the average amount of clueless ones).
@sveri, do you need only 5 - 10 minutes to check programming skills of a candidate? @dottedmag: true, they should be filtered out by hr
@jan.zy: Well, thats all we have here. It is not even that common to have tests, depending on the business.
o dear, that’s one more reason to not to ask about fibonacci if you have so little time. I would at least use a different series!
@sveri: and some people are against whiteboard coding exercises… they don’t like it at all. I think Bodil mentioned that she didn’t like them.
@thomas: Yea, actually that was the one think he figured out fast, that he had to use recursion. At least it's easier, afterwards my boss showed an iterative version. Also we had a short discussion about stack usage afterwards. It is not a showstopper for us, of course.
Maybe the applicant switches into a different (worse) mode of thinking with math-y things, but not with other domains?
BTW, I was recently reading "Playing with Math: Stories from Math Circles, Homeschoolers, and Passionate Teachers." http://naturalmath.com/playingwithmath/
good old fizzbuzz has been great for us for that initial “do you actually write code?” screening
(doseq [i (range 1 101)] (println (case (mod i 15) 0 “FizzBuzz” (3 6 9 12) “Fizz” (5 10) “Buzz” i)))
@cky I find it hard to read, cause in my head I have to map more calculations to the result. I like the (cond (= 0 (mod i 15)) ... (= 0 (mod i 3))... more, cause it is obv. what it does. But maybe that is just personal taste.
@cky: i like yours, had no idea
case could take a list on the left like that
@cky: is kinda similar to my core.match one https://gist.github.com/alandipert/1156115
@alandipert: Thanks! And your
match one is very nice too.
@cky: ty o/*\o