alt Hacker News> i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview
That’s an assumption. Perhaps following a dead end for a while, realizing it, pivoting, etc is a valuable, positive, signal?
> i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview
That’s an assumption. Perhaps following a dead end for a while, realizing it, pivoting, etc is a valuable, positive, signal?
I agree. But what I mean is: that's not how it's perceived in the current interview structure, which lasts maybe 45 minutes or so. Ultimately, going down a dead end means you'd now have 30 minutes to find the right solution and code it up. So the oracle (the interviewer) would probably help you realise sooner that it's a bad idea, so you don't waste your time. That's assuming they know the problem and solution well; if they don't, you'll just lose them and burn through your time.
In a 2 hour pair programming session on an 'unsolved' problem (like an open issue / minor bug / minor feature in a public repo), yes, it will likely not matter if you tried a bad idea, and would both be more realistic and a positive signal.