The author recounts failing a FizzBuzz coding challenge during a job interview, despite having significant programming experience. They were asked to write the solution on a whiteboard without an IDE, a task they found surprisingly difficult due to the pressure and lack of syntax highlighting/autocompletion. They stumbled on syntax and struggled to articulate their thought process while writing, ultimately producing incorrect and messy code. The experience highlighted the disconnect between real-world coding practices and the artificial environment of whiteboard interviews, leaving the author questioning their value. Though disappointed, they reflected on the lessons learned and the importance of practicing coding fundamentals even with extensive experience.
This blog post recounts the author's experience with a seemingly straightforward FizzBuzz coding challenge that unexpectedly derailed their job application. The author, initially confident due to their familiarity with the classic FizzBuzz problem, embarked on the task with an intention to showcase their coding proficiency. However, the online coding platform presented by the prospective employer introduced a series of unanticipated constraints and complexities that transformed the simple exercise into a frustrating ordeal.
The author meticulously details their approach, starting with what they perceived as a clean and efficient Python solution. This initial attempt, designed to adhere to standard FizzBuzz logic, involved iterating through numbers and printing "Fizz" for multiples of 3, "Buzz" for multiples of 5, and "FizzBuzz" for multiples of both. However, the online platform rejected this solution, citing an issue with the output format.
The author then embarked on a protracted debugging process, painstakingly attempting to decipher the platform's cryptic error messages and adjust their code accordingly. They experimented with various modifications, including meticulously ensuring their output precisely matched the expected format, accounting for potential whitespace discrepancies, and even exploring alternative approaches to structuring their code. Despite these efforts, the platform continued to reject their submissions, leading to mounting frustration and a sense of bewilderment.
The author describes a growing sense of unease as they grappled with the platform's opaque feedback and the seemingly arbitrary nature of the errors. This struggle, initially perceived as a minor hurdle, gradually eroded their confidence and cast a shadow over their perception of the company's technical evaluation process. The experience ultimately culminated in the author failing the coding challenge, effectively ending their candidacy for the position.
The post concludes with a reflection on the incident, expressing the author's disappointment not only in the outcome but also in the perceived disconnect between the seemingly trivial nature of the challenge and the significant consequences it had on their application. The author questions the effectiveness of using such rigid, automated coding platforms for evaluating candidates, suggesting that they may not accurately reflect real-world coding skills and can inadvertently create unnecessary barriers for otherwise qualified individuals. The author ultimately frames the experience as a learning opportunity, highlighting the importance of being prepared for unexpected challenges during the job application process.
Summary of Comments ( 256 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42784699
HN commenters largely sided with the author of the blog post, finding the interviewer's dismissal based on a slightly different FizzBuzz implementation unreasonable and indicative of a poor hiring process. Several pointed out that the requested solution, printing "FizzBuzz" only when divisible by both 3 and 5 instead of by either 3 or 5, is not the typical understanding of FizzBuzz and creates unnecessary complexity. Some questioned the interviewer's coding abilities and suggested the company dodged a bullet by not hiring the author. A few commenters, however, defended the interviewer, arguing that following instructions precisely is critical and that the author's code technically failed to meet the stated requirements. The ambiguity of the prompt and the interviewer's apparent unwillingness to clarify were also criticized as red flags.
The Hacker News post titled "The FizzBuzz that did not get me the job" generated a significant discussion with a variety of viewpoints on the interview process, the FizzBuzz challenge itself, and the author's specific situation.
Several commenters expressed sympathy for the author and criticized the interviewer's handling of the situation. They felt the interviewer was unnecessarily harsh and dismissive, failing to provide constructive feedback and instead resorting to belittling the candidate. Some argued that such behavior reflects poorly on the company's interview process and culture. One commenter shared a similar experience of being abruptly dismissed during a coding challenge, highlighting the negative impact these experiences can have on candidates.
Others defended the use of FizzBuzz as a screening tool, asserting its value in assessing basic programming proficiency and problem-solving skills. They argued that struggling with FizzBuzz might indicate a lack of fundamental knowledge that would be crucial for the role. Some suggested that the issue wasn't the author's inability to solve the problem immediately, but rather their reaction to the pressure and their failure to communicate their thought process effectively.
A recurring theme in the comments was the importance of communication during technical interviews. Several users emphasized that even if a candidate struggles with a particular problem, clearly articulating their thought process, asking clarifying questions, and demonstrating a willingness to learn can make a positive impression. They suggested that the author's lack of communication might have contributed to the negative outcome.
Some commenters debated the relevance of FizzBuzz in modern software development, with some arguing that it's an outdated and simplistic test that doesn't reflect the complexities of real-world programming. Others countered that while it may not be a comprehensive assessment, it can still be a useful filter for identifying candidates who lack basic programming skills.
A few commenters also discussed the potential role of nerves and anxiety in the author's performance. They acknowledged that interview pressure can significantly impact a candidate's ability to think clearly and perform at their best. Some suggested that the interviewer should have been more understanding and provided a more supportive environment.
Finally, some commenters questioned the author's interpretation of the events, suggesting that there might be more to the story than presented in the article. They cautioned against drawing definitive conclusions based on one side of the story.
Overall, the comments reflect a diverse range of opinions on the use of FizzBuzz, the importance of communication in interviews, and the appropriate way to handle candidates who struggle with technical challenges. The discussion highlights the challenges and complexities of the technical interview process for both candidates and interviewers.