On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:33:15PM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Lyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's interesting. From Perl Cert posts I've read on LPM and Perl Monks > > a lot of people don't rate Brainbench tests. The main argument being > > that the tests are based on memory of functions and their parameters, as > > opposed to whether you can actually write code. > I haven't read the posts so was wondering if they had an opinion on > how you would test whether someone could write code? I can see that's > kinda testable in an interview but doing it in a certifiable way seems > tough to me.
Here at $work we test people by having them come in for a programming test. We give them an hour and a half with perl and an interwebnet connection to solve as much as they can of a fairly open-ended problem. The problem tests knowledge of algorithms and data structures, and the really good people get enough done that they can start on optimising their code. In the interview we go through the code together, discussing other approaches they might have taken, why they chose particularly methods, and also talk about testing and documentation (which we don't expect them to do in the test itself). Yes, it's hard to certify - although don't universities and schools manage to do it in computer science courses? yes they do, but to do so is expensive - but we don't *need* that. We need people who can convince me and my colleagues that they're competent. -- David Cantrell | Godless Liberal Elitist You can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter" _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
