Lis Iswari wrote:This is awesome. I am looking forward to read the book because I was wondering in my job as I learned and worked on other people's code, how is it to really know and able to tell in the beginning when the candidate is good. What do we really need to see and put the emphasis more?
Because some people when interviewed doesn't show much knowledge (probably because still beginner) but then turn out to have very good logic and able to produce decent solution. And some others seems knows more about this and that but not so much in logic.
And what I think about it is knowledge is more achievable to develop by exploring and the time and experience will help. But to have excellent logic is different and more difficult to develop, its a way of thinking, problem solving skills, etc.
What do you think about this?
Lis, I will try to make it simple by focusing on knowledge vs. problem solving. My experience in hiring is that finding good problem solvers is harder. The two are interdependent: a good problem solver must have enough knowledge to be able to solve our
problems. I also believe gaining knowledge is easier than learning to become a good problem solver.
We interview many people who can answer specific questions like, "Explain the difference between abstract classes and interfaces." Many people can answer this but are not skilled in choosing when to apply one or the other. This is a trivial example but it scales all the way up to more sophisticated knowledge and problems. We look for people who have the necessary core knowledge for our positions and
the soft skills and behaviors that indicate the can wield their knowledge effectively. Furthermore, we want people who can grow their knowledge and skill as their career evolves.