programmingpraxis makes a comment in the latest post on Maximum Sum Subsequence:
"any programmer who doesn’t know about the solution will likely fail the interview, on the theory that if he isn’t at least interested enough in his profession to read Bentley [Programming Pearls], he isn’t interested enough in his profession to work for me."
In a follow-up comment:
"I still think a candidate not versed in the programming folklore will be less productive than one who is, and thus less suitable for hiring."
Is this a good or valid criteria for judging a programmer's abilities or future abilities?
It strikes me as a culture filter. You run in certain circles that I run in, read certain books that I read, therefor we will have a lot of the same prejudices and inclinations. As long as he isn't deluding himself into thinking it is an intelligence or competency filter, I can accept it.
I think the point is a reasonable one, if overly specific. A programmer who does no outside reading on his profession will be ill-equipped to do research when the need arises, and is more likely to want to be spoon-fed easy problems and cook up naive solutions.
While Programming Pearls is a reasonable test -- akin to checking whether someone has a classics background by asking a question about Moby Dick -- it should be acknowledged that everyone has some holes in their background, possibly even glaring and regrettable ones. A better question might be, "Describe a favorite clever hack and where you read about it."
A programmer who does no outside reading on his profession will be ill-equipped to do research when the need arises
I do outside reading, but I would be hard-pressed to make this claim. How is outside reading correlated to research ability? This is like saying, "If programmers are not playing a musical instrument outside of work, then it is obvious they do not have what it takes to think in patterns and perfect their skills."
"any programmer who doesn’t know about the solution will likely fail the interview, on the theory that if he isn’t at least interested enough in his profession to read Bentley [Programming Pearls], he isn’t interested enough in his profession to work for me."
In a follow-up comment:
"I still think a candidate not versed in the programming folklore will be less productive than one who is, and thus less suitable for hiring."
Is this a good or valid criteria for judging a programmer's abilities or future abilities?