Slashdot Mirror
The 'Trick' To Algorithmic Coding Interview Questions (dice.com)
Nerval's Lobster writes: Ah, the famous "Google-style" algorithmic coding interview. If you've never had one of these interviews before, the idea is to see if you can write code that's not only correct, but efficient, too. You can expect to spend lots of time diagramming data structures and talking about big O notation. Popular hits include "reverse a linked list in place," "balance a binary search tree," and "find the missing number in an array." Like it or not, a "Google-style" coding interview may stand between you and your next job, so it's in your interest to figure out how to deal with it. Parker Phinney, founder of Interview Cake, uses a Dice column to break down a variety of example problems and then solve them. But it's not just about mastering the most common kinds of problems by rote memorization; it's also about recognizing the patterns that underlie those problems.
And once again Nerval's Lobster posts a story which links to a dice.com story.
Seriously, not one story ever accepted from Nerval's Lobster doesn't point to dice.com, which pretty much means he's a paid staffer whose stories get promoted to click-whore for dice.com.
Honestly, make him an editor and give us a box to block stories from him.
But stop pretending he's getting accepted because of any other reason than shilling for dice.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Amazon also uses coding tests like this, generally based on binary trees. Like an idiot, I didn't google "Amazon code tests" ahead of time and pre-solve all of the possible code tests, because I was given one and sucked at it, only to later find it was one of the listed ones. So, note to the wise: google the code tests for the company you're applying for and pre-do the possible solutions. I'd also note that these take a lot longer to solve than the company implies it should take, especially if you want to set up tests to prove your answer is correct.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Learn the 40 examples in TFA off by heart
I've worked at several companies that do this style of interview, and interviewed well over 100 people this way. Any question you can just Google the answer for is a stupid interview question - though is may be used for a phone screen, where the real test is: can you code at all, not can you solve it.
I use questions where everyone who codes for a living will get the answer eventually, and measure how quickly it was solved, how good the code is, were errors and corner cases thought through, and so on. I use problems related to real problems I've worked on in my career. I find that's a better way to reliably sort candidates.
Others use very difficult questions where they don't expect most people to solve them without hints. I don't like that approach myself. For those questions, learning the algorithms common to these questions (which go in and out of fashion) is good practice.
Four I'd refresh myself on before an interview are:
* Code some graph-exploration with backtracking, like a maze explorer
* Remember how A* works, and code it (or at least be able to code a breadth-first search without pause)
* Look up how O(n) median (or k'th element) works, and code it (median problems used to be in fashion, and array-partitioning of some sort is ever popular)
* Radix sort and hash tables - it seems the sub-O(n*log(n)) sorting question and related search questions never die
Questions to gauge your comfort with recursion and pointers are also common, but you really shouldn't have to practice those. (Pattern matching in strings used to be another popular question, but I haven't heard of anyone using that for a long time now).
The good questions will be stuff there's no way to practice for, but I've found those four to be just generally good practice to knock the rust off the stupid algorithmic stuff that only comes up in job interviews - but practice on a whiteboard, not a keyboard.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
what is the alternative when we need an o(1) access time?
Insertion sort and infix trees work well. The allow you to make specific assumptions about the data you are traversing.