undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmacNchz1y ago0 comments

There’s a spectrum of reasonableness with technical interview questions—the process described in this post is unreasonable, but I think plain old fizzbuzz is about as reasonable as it gets. It’s actually pretty “real world” if the candidate will be writing code in their job.

It’s not a trick question nor does it require memorization or study to prepare. You’re not being given 20 minutes to solve something that requires knowledge of an algorithm that researchers worked on for decades that you’ve either practiced or will stumble through deriving from first principles—you’re writing a very simplistic function.

0 comments

sasmithjr1y ago

The only thing that might be tricky about FizzBuzz is if the person doesn't know about the modulo operator. I can't remember the last time I used it in production code; I use it far more thinking about FizzBuzz than I do anywhere else.

kijin1y ago

If I didn't have the modulo operator, I would just check whether division resulted in a round number. I wouldn't rate someone who understands this basic principle lower than someone who just happens to know about the modulo operator.

Bonus points if you use Python and demonstrate that you know the difference between the / operator and the // operator. That's much more useful in day-to-day work.

teo_zero1y ago

It's worth noting that the original FizzBuzz problem is not "given a number n, print..." but rather "for the first 100 natural numbers, print...". In this formulation, you don't need the modulo operator: you just initialize two counters at 3 and 5, respectively, decrement them each time, and react when either or both reach 0.

alok-g1y ago

I agree about vanilla FizzBuzz. It's like a 'hello, world' of coding. My comment is about the several other rules brought in.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse