They didn't say they copy-paste code. They pointed out that the algorithm's actual code could very easily be copy-pasted from, e.g., Stack Overflow, without deeply understanding it. By contrast, describing an algorithm in natural language demonstrates actual understanding.
Both are necessary but neither is sufficient. If you have someone who perfectly understands the algorithm but can’t write the code, that’s a different utility than someone who can write code but doesn’t know the optimal algorithm solution. You can say “at work I’d look up a reference” but in an interview setting that’s not helpful where the interviewer needs both. That’s kind of why I really don’t like remote tests. It’s really hard to filter out those trying to cheat. I’ve observed how leetcode stuff tries to track you looking stuff up and it’s theater. Just get a tablet or second laptop (or even use your phone) and the site can’t track if you’re actually looking that up.
I get annoyed with those tests and interviews too, but I’m aware of the challenge on the other side so I take it with a grain of salt and would never let my ego make me arrogant enough to take umbrage at being asked to write down a piece of code. I can understand the frustration, but this process is applied equally along all levels. Hell, the most talented people I worked with were regularly interviewed on coding by people more inexperienced/less talented than them. I would have a hard time any of them expressing anything other than mild annoyance at the system that this is still the best we’ve managed to do and no one would think to say “what right does this young inexperienced person have to ask me questions”. If anything, that attitude would instantly disqualify someone on the “fit” axis of the interview even if they passed on the technical merits.
Thank you, yes, that was my point. The interviewer gave me a choice of languages, as I recall in fact he said "use a language you're comfortable with" and I thought to myself, what does this prove? I can google the answer and paste it in without him knowing. Whereas, I can explain instantly how I would do it, too fast to have googled it, and he could maybe interactively ask me "what about this condition? how would you check for errors?" etc. The other thing is, he was unwilling to answer any of my questions until we got through this exercise, and I felt he was being rude and somewhat arrogant though I was being quite polite. I'm more than happy to show off my coding skills - I know lots of languages - just wanted to cut to the chase. Maybe I was too impatient. Or, you know, what they say about trusting the first impression is true!
you seem to be protesting too much. I think it's entirely reasonable for a tech company to ask for code, even if you can describe the algorithm in plain english. Surely writing the code is significantly less than the effort you're expending right now to demonstrate to us why they are unreasonable?
