Whiteboard coding in software developer interviews.

[biometrics]

What's this thread about again?

 

[cguy]

On the writing code part, so like Knuth implied you are an artisan when you code (the use of the skill), and a scientist when conducting research, as to whether you met that criteria is a different matter entirely.

Hopefully we can agree on something, for example: most programmers fall into the category of skill computing artisans. I.e. They're not involved in day to day computing research, and program design or architecting is not the considered research, re its what any artisan would do..

The code I write is part of my research, so I don't really know how this can be teased out as being "not research". I will literally code a new algorithm, and then run it to obtain results - the implementation is part of the research process. It may be "artisan" work too, but it's still research.

A lot of the Google code looks like this. As I've said... many times... I'm not talking about "most programmers", I'm talking about one of the largest companies on the forefront of technical innovation. Sure, not all of the programmers do R&D all the time, sometimes someone has to spend a month writing a GUI, however, there is the expectation that any developer should be a competent computer scientist should they need to do such work, as many do.

 

[biometrics]

The code I write is part of my research

So you don't have a job?

 

[cguy]

...and again you're wrong, this is just one of them http://www.acm.org

What the hell does the ACM have to do with anything? I have numerous ACM publications myself, but since when do they certify scientists? I think you're just randomly googling stuff and pasting it like you did in the other threads.

 

[cguy]

So you don't have a job?

I'm a quantitative researcher and developer. There is such a thing as applied research. ;-)

 

[[)roi(]]

What the hell does the ACM have to do with anything? I have numerous ACM publications myself, but since when do they certify scientists? I think you're just randomly googling stuff and pasting it like you did in the other threads.

Tsk tsk... You do understand the difference between publication and accreditation; the latter is internationally recognized, the former really depends on the content.

It's very similar to the accrediation of other fraternities: e.g. Legal bar accreditation, medical board accreditation
I.e. The hard part that comes after your studies. Granted its far more difficult to achieve a Science accreditation than the other two.

 

[[)roi(]]

I'm a quantitative researcher and developer. There is such a thing as applied research. ;-)

Then the term probably applies to you more than it does others. The research part is the science bit, so cool you're doing both.
You really have to try to get past the notion that being an artist when you program is a bad thing; it simply means your using acquired knowledge and your own skill (honed over the years) to do create something.

 

[cguy]

Tsk tsk... You do understand the difference between publication and accreditation; the latter is internationally recognized, the former really depends on the content.

:wtf: obviously, I know the difference, but since when does the ACM do accreditation of scientists?

 

[cguy]

What's this thread about again?

Let's see:
- Whiteboard == bad because dude with street-cred didn't know "how to computer science" and didn't get job
- Doing a coding practical is better!... but not if you're Google...
- Trees are way wicked! ... no they're not... Trees are totally, way wicked difficult, y'all!!! ... no they're not... etc. etc.
- Street-cred dude is so smart he wouldn't get it wrong... but he did...
- But cguy, you're assuming he's an obese pacific islander called Jorje...
- cguy: :wtf:
- Scientist is a magical term ... no it's not... programmers are artisans... perhaps, but Google employees need to be scientists too...
- Scientologists are accredited ... um no... totally, here's the ACM ... um, that's not what they do I have ACM publications, but what are you on about with accreditation... ...publications are not acredidations... ... no sh.t sherlock...

(continued past this post)
- Scientologists are accredited with the Outstanding John Travolta Impression Award... ... still not an accreditation...
- Scientologists are accredited with the Dressing Like John Travolta for > 10 Years Awards... ... still not an accreditation, but that is an achievement...

 

[cguy]

Tsk tsk... You do understand the difference between publication and accreditation; the latter is internationally recognized, the former really depends on the content.

It's very similar to the accrediation of other fraternities: e.g. Legal bar accreditation, medical board accreditation
I.e. The hard part that comes after your studies. Granted its far more difficult to achieve a Science accreditation than the other two.

Er, you're talking crap...

 

[[)roi(]]

:wtf: obviously, I know the difference, but since when does the ACM do accreditation of scientists?

http://www.acm.org/awards/about-awards
This would be the equivalent, yet as I said it's far more difficult to achieve. Like Microsoft did, your company can put your work forward for review, and if it meets the criteria you could be formally accredited.

 

[[)roi(]]

Er, you're talking crap...

Nope, two people I know have been accredited for their work at Microsoft, it's not only reserved for the lifetime achievers. All contributions can be measured against this.

 

[cguy]

http://www.acm.org/awards/about-awards
This would be the equivalent, yet as I said it's far more difficult to achieve. Like Microsoft did, your company can put your work forward for review, and if it meets the criteria you could be formally accredited.

It's an award for outstanding achievements you raving idiot, not an accreditation that allows you to practice with the title "scientist".

 

[[)roi(]]

It's an award for outstanding achievements you raving idiot, not an accreditation that allows you to practice with the title "scientist".

Don't be silly, any idiot can call themselves a scientist, these accrediations formally acknowledge you as having achieved that. For example: http://awards.acm.org/senior/
http://awards.acm.org/senior_member_nom_guide.cfm
I.e. Your accrediation will be acknowledge anywhere, whereas the idiot won't

The same goes for professorship, you could call yourself a professor, but formally you won't be acknowledged as one.

 

[cguy]

Don't be silly, any idiot can call themselves a scientist, these accrediations formally acknowledge you as having achieved that. For example: http://awards.acm.org/senior/
I.e. Your accrediation will be acknowledge anywhere, whereas the idiot won't

The same goes for professorship, you could call yourself a professor, but formally you won't be acknowledged as one.

... and that's an award (still not an accreditation, Sunshine) you get for having 10 years of professional experience in computing and 5 years of membership with the ACM. The award is called "Senior Member Grade". You don't even have to be any kind of scientist or researcher to get it - in fact, you can be a complete idiot.

 

[[)roi(]]

... and that's an award (still not an accreditation sunshine) you get for having 10 years of professional experience in computing and 5 years of membership with the ACM. The award is called "Senior Member Grade". You don't even have to be any kind of scientist or researcher to get it.

So you've recieved it then
Silly me for thinking they have varying levels of accrreditation, and the way I read it none of them are simply membership cards; there is a review board after all?

 

[biometrics]

/scrolls

 

[cguy]

So you've recieved it then
Silly me for thinking they have varying levels of achievements, and they way I read it none of them are simply membership cards; there is a review board after all?

Nope, I have to slum it with a PhD and a ton of experience, I'm afraid. I don't have an ACM membership, and my work is proprietary.

Also, I take that back - I see that they do have to show much better than average performance in their careers. Still, this isn't a prerequisite for being a scientist, it just means that you're reasonably good at it. The importance of this is diluted by the fact that most researchers, including most good researchers, don't bother with this.

 

[[)roi(]]

Nope, I have to slum it with a PhD and a ton of experience, I'm afraid.

So it is a bit more than a membership card. As I implied anyone can call themselves anything but as the ACM states on their opening page, they "Give Credit Where Credit Is Due"; now haggle over words if you must but to be accredited for the work you done or what you've achieved sounds pretty much like an accreditation.

 

[[)roi(]]

Nope, I have to slum it with a PhD and a ton of experience, I'm afraid. I don't have an ACM membership, and my work is proprietary.

Also, I take that back - I see that they do have to show better than average performance in their careers. Still, this isn't a prerequisite for being a scientist, it just means that you're reasonably good at it. The importance of this is diluted by the fact that most researchers, including most good researchers, don't bother with this.

Tell me about it, I'm busy with my PHD.

As I said there is no prerequisite to calling yourself anything, formally being accredited for that is something else.