I've been asked to write code/design things in an interview. Sometimes even to provide code samples. Very reasonable and very wise (always surprised when this DOESN'T happen)
I had a job a year or so back where the code was so awful that I would not have taken the job, if I'd seen the mess I had to deal with ahead of time. And I can't tell you how many horrendous databases I've had to work with.
Is it out of the question for me to ask them to provide a code sample and to view their database design? Assuming I'd be happy to sign an NDA, part of me feels it would insane to take a job without examining the codebase or database I'd be working with.
Anyone done this?
Update
This would be something I would ask later in the interview process, if things were proceeding well and I felt an offer was forthcoming.
It's also in the context of working in a small shop or small project as my preference is to avoid places that use phrases like "get a developer off the floor"
You can definitely ask. The answer may be "No," but nobody should consider that to be a bad or inappropriate question.
If they won't show you the code, you should definitely take that into account when you decide whether you want to accept an offer. I would take it as a sign that at least one of the following things is true:
The code is so horrible that they know you'll run away screaming.
The company has an ultra-secretive trust-nobody culture (which I would hate).
The company thinks they have such amazing code that just glancing at it would turn you into a superstar competitor. (In other words, they're self-deluded morons.)
They have glaring security holes that they hope to keep secret.
The people who are interviewing you don't know how to get the code themselves. (In which case you are not talking to the right people.)
I'd be more interested in seeing the company's systems - i.e. test framework, release process, autobuilds.... The presence or absence of those would tell me a lot more than a couple hundred lines of code.
I did ask: "Can I see some code and talk to programmers working here?"
The employer replied: "Sure! Come you can directly talk to our lead programmer of our information system!"
What an honor!
they showed me concept papers
I could talk to the lead programmer
they showed me a small part of a very new project telling: "this is just a prototype, direct3d is so sketchy, that's why this code is so messy"
It turned out that:
the lead programmer left the day I arrived
the software he had the lead, was a big mess
somehow I ended up spending 50% of my time, fighting against the mess
None of the candidates we have interviewed have ever asked that; however, many of them have been co-ops/interns in the company so they are familiar with our code...
Having said that, it is highly unlikely we will show our code to ANY candidate, regardless of an NDA. I would be happy to answer questions about what technologies we use, what system we use for revisions, practices around, etc. Actual code though? No.
Also in a large enough system (as ours is) someone can just show you the "best" code there is...and you would be where you started :) As for a database design...both companies I have worked at have had enormously large databases (university, corporate company)...so that wouldn't work either.
I've asked this in interviews with Xerox PARC, a startup, and Yahoo.
At PARC they sat me at a workstation with the code I'd take over if hired, went over the structure of the codebase super-briefly, and left me alone for around 20 minutes. This was enough to get an idea whether I could stand working with it, though I'd have liked some more time, like an hour total. Afterward I asked about a design decision that seemed dubious, and we chatted about the design and the style in general. This didn't just tell me more about the job, it told them more about me: did I explore their code top-down or bottom-up, what did I pick up on or ask about, etc. Valuable all around.
At the startup, they set up a separate meeting on another day, bringing in the author of the code (who wasn't an employee); we sat down at a laptop and went over things together. It was an unusual request to them and I think I had to sign a new NDA. This was once again worthwhile: my earlier interviews hadn't really cleared up what this fancy AI language was all about or what they'd want me to do with it, and sitting down with some concrete code blew away a lot of fog.
At Yahoo, I didn't see much of anything; I don't recall just what their response was. If I'd seen the code I ended up dealing with I might have had second thoughts (though it worked out all right in the end). (Both of the above codebases that I did get to see seemed generally nicer; the PARC one was open-sourced later on.)
In all these cases I shared some code of my own with them.
If you are going to do this then I think you need to give them a little warning so they can prepare an NDA and get an apppriate environment set up in which you can see it. Also be prepared to dedicate a little time to understanding why the code is in the shape it is.
If you turn up at your first interview and say, right, can I see the code, all but a very few people will say no. And not necessarily because they are evil and don't want to show you, but because it just isn't as simple as saying yes.
In my experience as a recruiter for a large software company it would have taken a considerable amount of time for us to disclose enough detail of the code and internally developed frameworks for any candidate - however bright - to be able to make a meaningful judgement of its pros and cons. We would only contemplate doing that if we were serious about hiring them.
If I were asked that question I woul say yes, come back another time and we'll arrange something. I would get a trustworthy developer off the floor and have them bring a laptop to the next interview and show a little of the code.
The reality is pretty much any software project which is of a reasonable size and has been in existence for more than one release will have some horrible scary rubbish in it.
Similarly to some of the other responses, I've never had a candidate ask to see our code. Even if they did I've be very careful to do so and most likely would not. As Swati mentions, pretty much any non-trivial system will have sections that look good so even seeing the code won't help that much.
Better than looking at actual code is the Joel Test. Basically it is 12 yes or no questions that you can ask an employer. The more yes answers, the better the work environment is expected to be. It's obviously not a hard and fast "rule", but it would seem to indicate those companies that take code (and coders) seriously.
I can't think a reason for not showing some classes or talking about the architecture they're using. From my point of view it's like asking them to show you where are you going to work (room, table, chairs, teammates...).
Anyhow, asking for it will show them you're interested in best practices and also that you're not desperate about finding a job at any price, and don't know how this can hurt.
Go to open source projects. There you don't have to ask for permission to see the code.
It can't hurt to ask and this is a very good idea which I am going to add to my checklist of questions to ask employers.
An interesting idea, but I don't know how many companies would go for it. I know we can't do it where I work now.
I think the biggest problem you're going to have with this is that I have found that a lot of people take offense to people not liking their code. It's like criticising someone's therapist, it's just not a good idea to be an outsider and do it. Seeing the code and then not taking the job could give you the reputation that you're arrogant or not good enough to work on the code and that's why you didn't take the job. It might save you from getting job you don't want, but it could give you a negative reputation down the line. I live in a sizable city, but the IT people still know one another and word spreads. People in our field have egos, and it's easier to trash somoene else's reputation than it is to admit that code you wrote isn't up to par.
Even if they showed you some code, would that be sufficient for you to come to a rough conclusion about the quality of code that you would be spending time with? For example, at my previous place, one of their products was a large e-banking middleware application. The core of the application was in C++ and designed and written in a great way. However, the extensions (which by far covered a large part of the application and its various different versions), which were in C++ too, that were mostly coded by the less-experienced and less-knowledgeable developers were a pile of crappy code (which I had to fix and work with or write from scratch at times) slapped together to just somehow work. If I had asked them to show me a snippet of the code during the interview, and they had shown me some of the core stuff (the extension code actually mostly contained the client-specific business logic so it wouldn't make much sense without the business-domain knowledge, etc), I would've thought that the overall quality of the code is good (which was not completely the case).
More important than to ask for code snippets, I believe, is to ask them for which source code control product they use (run away from companies that answer "Visual SourceSafe") and which methodology they use: "Agile" or "Scrum" sends positive signals, CMMI usually means company loves bureaucratic processes, if they give you a "huh?" then you're warned ;)
I think this is a great idea; however, as an employer, I would be hesitant -- even with an NDA -- to provide an interview candidate samples of real, working code unless I was pretty sure I wanted to hire the person.
The problem is they will show you a little bit of code, but each of their programmers will write code in a different way. You are unluckily to have to work on the part of the code base that is well written.
Asking to see their coding standard and how they enforce it is more likely to be of use.
Related
Just agreed to a web project, basically redesign from the ground up. Lots of ui and navigation issues necessitated this redesign.
In evaluating the project was allowed to trudge through the existing sites code. This curled my toes, saw lots of functions with names like getSubSubSubSubSubProductCategory and getSubCategorySubCategory. I just chalked that up to really bad naming/coding.
I didn't consider the underlying db might be as f'd up. I was wrong. Same scary ass table names and on top of that there's 97 friggin tables! I'm not even sure this site sells 97 products.
Would you ever consider working with a db like this? or would you be honest and tell the client he's got a real mess on his hands?
97 tables doesn't necessarily mean a bad design. Normalization means a higher table count than a denormalized design, so it's not necessarily bad.
With that said, I can't judge the design based on what you've posted.
I don't know if the same people who did the bad naming on the web and middle tier created the database. The only way to figure out whether someone smart did the database is to look at it. Check naming, of course, but also look at the degree of normalization, proper keys, good indexes, etc.
Whether or not to take on the gig depends on how much you need the gig and whether you want the challenge. Fixing a big mess might be satisfying: you might become the guy who drained the swamp.
No, be honest, you'll regret it bitterly later if you don't, as you'll never produce a decent solution in a reasonable time.
Also, bear in mind that your client probably knows his system is ghastly, and will respect your giving him a candid, professional opinion.
Finally, assuming he listens, and accepts your analysis, you're in a good position to re-negociate.
This totally depends on your client's expectations.
To me, it doesn't matter how hungry you are - if the client doesn't have reasonable expectations of how much time/work it's going to take, than walk away..
Having said that, it's your job to inform him of his mess. Take a day, do a cursory analysis and show the client the concerns you have. Then, take the time you think it's going to take and double it (maybe triple). Give your client that number and see how they react.
Sounds interesting!
can learn much from such tasks embrace it ;)
UPDATE:
Always trust your instincts.
I definitely should have run for the hills.
I'm working on a project at the moment where it would be really useful to be able to detect when a certain topic/idea is mentioned in a body of text. For instance, if the text contained:
Maybe if you tell me a little more about who Mr Jones is, that would help. It would also be useful if I could have a description of his appearance, or even better a photograph?
It'd be great to be able to detect that the person has asked for a photograph of Mr Jones. I could take a really naïve approach and just look for the word "photo" or "photograph", but this would obviously be no good if they wrote something like:
Please, never send me a photo of Mr Jones.
Does anyone know where to start with this? Is it even possible?
I've looked into things like nltk, but I've yet to find an example of someone doing something similar and am still not entirely sure what this kind of analysis is called. Any help that can get me off the ground would be great.
Thanks!
The best thing out there that might be useful to you is automatic sentiment analysis. This is used, for example, to judge whether, say, a customer review is positive or negative. I cannot give you direct pointers to available tools, but this is what you are looking for.
I must say, though, that this is a current hot topic in natural language processing and I’ve seen a number of papers at conferences. It’s definitely quite a complex matter and if you’re starting from scratch, it might take quite some time before you get the results that you want.
NLTK is not a bad framework for parsing natural language but beware that this is not a simple matter. Doing stuff like this is really research level programming.
A good thing that makes it much easier is if you have a very limited domain - say your application focuses on information about famous writers, then you can avoid some complexities of natural language like certain types of ambiguities.
Where to start? Good question. I don't know of any tutorials on the topic (and I presume you tried the Google option) but I'd imagine that iTunes U would have a course on the topic. If not I can post a link to a course I've done that mentions the subject and wasn't completely horrible: http://www.inf.ed.ac.uk/teaching/courses/inf2a/lecturematerials/index.html#lecture01
The problem that u tackle is very challenging.
I would start by first identifying the entities in the text (problem referred as Named Entity Recognition, google it), and then a I would try to identify concepts.
If want to roughly identify what is the text about, I suggest that you start by using WordNet and according to the words and their places in the hierarchy to identify the concepts involved.
If you want to produce a system which show real intelligence than you should start researching about resources such as CYC (OpenCYC) which will allow you to convert the sentences into FOL sentences.
This hardcore AI, approach to solving your problem. For simple chat bot, it would be easier to rely on simple statistical methods.
good luck
When I was learning software development, we were taught that actual "bug free" software was mathematically impossible for anything but the most trivial programs. For a mathematical mind, it's very simple to see how basic thingslike the number of possible inputs and the variability of platforms makes bug free not only impossible (in realistic time), but economically stupid for anything short of nuclear power generation.
However I'm constantly hearing business people spout off with "It's understood that software will be bug free, and if it's not all bugs should be fixed for free". I typically respond with "No, we'll fix any bugs found in the UAT period of (x) weeks" where x is defined by contract. This leads to a lot of arguments, and loss of work to people who are perfectly willing to promise the impossible.
Does anyone know of (or can express one) a good explanation of why "bug free" is NOT realistic OR standard -- that your average middle manager can understand?
See Gödel's incompleteness theorems
See also Hilbert's second problem
See also Turing: Halting Problem
See also MSFT financial reports for headcount numbers and Microsoft Connect for bug reporting on Microsoft products for a less intellectual explanation.
Perhaps the best way to explain it would be to read up a little on places that really, really, really don't want software bugs, and what they do about it. (You can use NASA as an example, and the Ariane 5 first launch as an example of what happens with such software bugs.) Middle managers tend to relate to stories and parallel examples.
Alternately, find out what happens with deals where one side does promise the impossible (and it happens much more often than developers like). If you can show that it doesn't end well for the promisee, that might help.
Also, you might want to go into what you would need as a bare minimum to promise bug-free software, which would be a truly comprehensive spec.
I usually walk managers through a simple explanation of how most programs are really state engines, and that as soon as you start interfacing with the real world the number of possible input states rapidly reaches infinity: because the user over here is inputting X while Y happens over here within 50ms of Z happening over there... etc, etc.
Granted, after about five minutes of this their eyes tend to glaze over. But at least I tried.
We've pretty much licked the whole distributed thing for version control at this point. I'm not saying everything's perfect, but, from hereon out, it's mostly just a matter of continuing what has already been started.
Distributed bug tracking, though, is in its infancy stage, IMHO. It's rather inconvenient, not being able to work with an issue tracker on the road, especially since I have a tendency to forget what my changes over the past two hours were for. Yes, I know, I could just keep a log on the road and update a traditional tracker as soon as I get on the net again, but still... Keeping my options open and all that. :P
Currently, I only know of Bugs Everywhere and Ditz-- those, and the one that comes with Fossil. Of these, I think Fossil is the farthest along, which is not suprising, considering how tightly it's integrated with the version control side of the equation. I've had to jump through quite a few hoops to get my co-devs to even look at something other than SVN, but, if Fossil really is all that, I wouldn't mind doing it again.
Before I do, however, I want to ask older and wiser heads than mine: Do you have experience with these three? What do you think of them? Do you know of others? Please link to them, and let me know how they fared.
Fossil works as an 'easy to setup' Distributed Bug tracker , and has a nice autosync facility that lets developers share their bugs without intervention.
to get started,
Download the fossil binary of your choice
fossil new bugs.fossil
fossil ui bugs.fossil (runs the server)
your developers do the same
Download the fossil binary of your choice
fossil clone
fossil ui bugs.fossil
set up a cron job to 'fossil sync ...' so the bugs propagate to all users as the fossil self-hosting repositories demonstrate
There is not much more to it than that.
Edit - take a look at Customizing The Ticket System too.
Because I wanted (well, needed, really) a solution that could probably (maybe, hopefully) work right now, we went with the following setup:
Bazaar-NG as the VCS
Bugs Everywhere as the bug tracker
Zim as wiki
It may not be the perfect setup, nor even a particularly acceptable one to some, but it meets the criteria of working right now. I still would like to learn more from others; maybe I'm missing a not-so obvious trait of other solutions that would cause me to become fanatic enough that I'd bug my co-devs to switch.
Anyway, if anyone uses this, or a similar, set of tools, please let me know how it's worked out so far for you, what your circumstances are, etc. Right now, this solution of ours is all of three days old, so I really don't have much data to share as of yet.
Eric Sink has some sensible thoughts on the subject here - he's clearly given it more thought than me but he does make one key point which is that you have a different paradigm when dealing with features and bugs to when dealing with development, particularly with respect to bugs.
Additional information for people like me who're interested in the subject, but can't pull up enough relevant info through Google (either they're not there, or my Google-fu is severely lacking):
Just branched Bugs Everywhere again. bzr log --limit 1 shows the last commit to be from early October 09. The development is slow, but it's there. I haven't yet dived in to see just what exactly be offers. Documentation is severely lacking. There isn't even a quick-start guide on the site.
Ditz, using a clone of its mainline git repo just utterly fails for me. Google indicates the 1.9 releases of Ruby breaks it. Supposedly, there are git clones that fix it, but I'd really rather not mess with git.
Fossil has at least one relevant question here on SO: What do people think of the fossil DVCS? (it even has an answer from the author!). Much respect for D. Richard Hipp (author of SQLite and Fossil, as well other insanely cool things I can only use and read about on Wikipedia), but I'd like feedback from other mortals, as well.
Still not enough for me, though. There has to be at least a couple of people who've used either be or ditz for a non-trivial project-- at least, enough to be able to give an informed opinion.
I don't care about the technical side-- either the project documents it on its Web site, or I could just look at the source. What I'm looking for is real-world experience: What were the hurdles to its adoption? What is a particular project lacking? What would you add, that you really need, given maybe two years of paid time to work on it? Stuff like that.
I would like to hear opinions or peoples experiences regarding Rel. Is it destined for the dustbin, or is it the next big thing in programming? I haven't tried doing anything with it yet (and it looks like you really can't at this point), but I'm intrigued by a few of the concepts discussed in it. Notably:
Removal of nulls completely from the data handling part of the language.
No need for mapping types between the language and the data storage.
Nesting tables
Complete separation of design and implementation.
Thoughts?
I think it is intended as an aid to teaching the pure relational model, not as a competitor to SQL DBMSs for "real work" in the short or medium term. However, Date and Darwen make a compelling case for the proper implementation of the relational model in their book The Third Manifesto. Maybe one day someone will produce a successful product based on it. After all, Oracle was a very small, niche company once!
Right, I agree with you Tony. The interesting thing for me, though, is that Rel is a somewhat working implementation with the understanding that it is essentially a working version of Tutorial D. The thought being that some well funded enterprise takes the research and decides that something like an Industrial D might be worthwhile.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I get the impression that while Tutorial D is primarily a data language, it has the potential to move into the application space as well. That seems pretty ground-breaking to me. Of course, after reading some of the stuff from Date, Darwen, Pascal, and others, it seems like the language may have the goal of supplanting object oriented programming in general. Right now, OO appears to rule the world of programming. Rel would make available an alternative view on programming in general.
So I guess what I'm curious about is whether this project has legs that leads to other products or if people think it's going to be just a historical curiosity.
Nearly four years on from the OP. I came across Rel recently, and it does have potential for what I am doing. It is more clearly established as a teaching language, but the implementation is now quite solid, though still a little fragile in syntax. It does have potential and I hope that this potential will be realised. Unfortunately this is a similar statement to that made four years ago, so if it is to be realised, it is evidently a very slow burner. Still most research efforts take about 10 years to become embedded in product, so there is still hope.