mirror of
https://github.com/yangshun/tech-interview-handbook.git
synced 2026-02-03 02:24:47 +08:00
website: update cheatsheet and coding signal
This commit is contained in:
Yangshun
@@ -53,13 +53,13 @@ This is a straight-to-the-point, distilled list of technical interview Do's and
|
||||
| ❌ | Start coding without interviewer's green light. |
|
||||
| ❌ | Appear too unsure about your approach or analysis. |
|
||||
|
||||
### During coding
|
||||
### Code out your solution
|
||||
|
||||
| | Things |
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ✅ | Explain what you are coding/typing to the interviewer, what you are trying to achieve. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Practice good coding style. Clear variable names, consistent operator spacing, proper indentation, etc. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Type/write at a reasonable speed. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Type/write at a reasonable speed. Too slow is no good. |
|
||||
| ✅ | As much as possible, write actual compilable code, not pseudocode. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Write in a modular fashion. Extract out chunks of repeated code into functions. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Ask for permission to use trivial functions without having to implement them; saves you some time. |
|
||||
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ This is a straight-to-the-point, distilled list of technical interview Do's and
|
||||
| ✅ | If you are cutting corners in your code, state that out loud to your interviewer and say what you would do in a non-interview setting (no time constraints). E.g., "Under non-interview settings, I would write a regex to parse this string rather than using `split()` which may not cover all cases." |
|
||||
| ✅ | Practice whiteboard space-management skills. |
|
||||
| ⚠️ | Reasonable defensive coding. Check for nulls, empty collections, etc. Can omit if input validity has been clarified with the interviewer. |
|
||||
| ❌ | Remain quiet the whole time. |
|
||||
| ❌ | Remain quiet the whole time while coding. |
|
||||
| ❌ | Spend too much time writing comments. |
|
||||
| ❌ | Use extremely verbose or single-character (unless they're common like `i`, `n`) variable names. |
|
||||
| ❌ | Copy and paste code without checking (e.g. variables need to be renamed). |
|
||||
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ This is a straight-to-the-point, distilled list of technical interview Do's and
|
||||
| --- | --- |
|
||||
| ✅ | Scan through your code for mistakes as if it was your first time seeing code written by someone else. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Check for off-by-one errors. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Come up with more test cases. Try extreme test cases. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Come up with test cases. Try extreme test cases - empty sets, single item sets, negative numbers |
|
||||
| ✅ | Step through your code with those test cases. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Look out for places where you can refactor. |
|
||||
| ✅ | Reiterate the time and space complexity of your code. |
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -7,95 +7,97 @@ The point of interviews is for interviewers to extract signals from certain cand
|
||||
|
||||
When interviewers take down interview feedback, these are likely what is on their feedback sheet.
|
||||
|
||||
Refer to the [Facebook's Onsite Interview Guide](https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.2365-6/75448664_529293754518370_5563533277542744064_n.pdf?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=ad8a9d&_nc_ohc=wLjmSQfO3zQAX_fyaQ7&_nc_ht=scontent.xx&_nc_rmd=260&oh=577831ef9fb665716a3651b82f7041bc&oe=613A5FE8) for more information.
|
||||
|
||||
## Communication
|
||||
|
||||
### Clarify problem
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Appropriately asked good, clarifying questions about the problem
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to confirm understanding/ask appropriate questions
|
||||
|
||||
### Communicating approach
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Able to explain overall approach, technical terms, and acronyms (where applicable)
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to effectively explain overall approach, technical terms, and acronyms (where applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
### Explains while coding
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Explains what the code is doing while coding, especially for parts that aren't obvious
|
||||
- 👎 Keeps silent during coding, or just reading out the code without much explanation
|
||||
|
||||
## Problem solving
|
||||
|
||||
#### Understanding the problem
|
||||
### Understanding the problem
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Understood the key aspects of the problem quickly
|
||||
- 👎 Had difficulty in understanding the key aspects of the problem
|
||||
|
||||
#### Solution/approach
|
||||
### Solution/approach
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Approached the problem in a systematic and logical manner
|
||||
- 👎 Did not demonstrate a logical thought process for approaching the problem
|
||||
|
||||
#### Improving the solution
|
||||
### Trade-offs analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Came up with multiple solutions and explained the trade-offs of each clearly and correctly
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to describe trade-offs of different solutions
|
||||
|
||||
### Improving the solution
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Suggested a more efficient solution when prompted, or proactively coming up with a better solution
|
||||
- 👎 Had difficulty in coming up with a more efficient solution even after being prompted
|
||||
|
||||
#### Trade-offs analysis
|
||||
### Complexity analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Explained the trade-offs of different approaches clearly and correctly
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to describe trade-offs of different approaches
|
||||
- 👍 Able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity
|
||||
- 👎 Was not able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity (explain why TC came up with such an answer)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Hinting
|
||||
### Hinting
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Did not require any major hints
|
||||
- 👎 Needed plenty of hints
|
||||
|
||||
## Technical competency
|
||||
|
||||
#### Speed
|
||||
### Speed
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Quickly implemented a working solution
|
||||
- 👎 Was not able to complete the solution
|
||||
|
||||
#### Correctness/Accuracy
|
||||
### Correctness/Accuracy
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Implemented the solution correctly (e.g., working solution, minimal bugs)
|
||||
- 👎 Unable to correctly implement a solution (e.g., non-working solution, incorrect logic, and/or serious bugs)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Complexity analysis
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity
|
||||
- 👎 Was not able to determine the algorithmic time and space complexity (explain why TC came up with such an answer)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Mastery of chosen programming language
|
||||
### Mastery of chosen programming language
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Demonstrated mastery of the chosen programming language
|
||||
- 👎 Does not seem to be familiar with the chosen programming language
|
||||
|
||||
#### Implementation
|
||||
### Implementation
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Implementation was clean and straightforward
|
||||
- 👎 Implementation was unnecessarily complex and/or messy
|
||||
|
||||
#### Coding style
|
||||
### Coding style
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Coding style was neat (proper indentation, spacing, and no bad practices)
|
||||
- 👎 Coding style was messy (inconsistent indentation, weird spacings, etc.)
|
||||
|
||||
## Testing
|
||||
|
||||
#### Common cases
|
||||
### Common cases
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Tested their code against various typical cases
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to test the code against typical cases
|
||||
|
||||
#### Corner cases
|
||||
### Corner cases
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Found and handled corner/edge cases
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to consider corner/edge cases
|
||||
|
||||
#### Self-correction
|
||||
### Self-correction
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Identified and corrected bugs in the code (where applicable)
|
||||
- 👎 Was not able to discover and fix bugs even after being prompted
|
||||
|
||||
## Communication
|
||||
|
||||
#### Clarify problem
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Appropriately asked good, clarifying questions about the problem
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to confirm understanding/ask appropriate questions
|
||||
|
||||
#### Communicating approach
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Able to explain overall approach, technical terms, and acronyms (where applicable)
|
||||
- 👎 Failed to effectively explain overall approach, technical terms, and acronyms (where applicable)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Explains while coding
|
||||
|
||||
- 👍 Explains what the code is doing while coding, especially for parts that aren't obvious
|
||||
- 👎 Keeps silent during coding, or just reading out the code without much explanation
|
||||
- 👎 Not able to discover and fix bugs even after being hinted/prompted
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user