Programming interviewing process can be hacked, and a quick Amazon search uncovers a bunch of titles doing just that.
I can tell you what the bias might be - people with other backgrounds might treat software engineering and programming as equals, and thus have very vague idea of things like system reliability, scalability, failover tactics, deployments, etc., jumping at the quickest dirtiest obvious solution. Steer the conversation in a way where people become cognizant of your knowledge of application architecture and system-level design.
> I can tell you what the bias might be - people with other backgrounds might treat software engineering and programming as equals, and thus have very vague idea of things like system reliability, scalability, failover tactics, deployments, etc., jumping at the quickest dirtiest obvious solution. Steer the conversation in a way where people become cognizant of your knowledge of application architecture and system-level design.
Is that really true? If anything in my experience it's most programmers who look at jumping at the quickest dirtiest obvious solution. We have to fight as sysadmins to get them to do things right. But that's just my experience where I work. Things could certainly be very different at a tech company or something.
I am the programmer / software engineer arguing to not do the quickest dirtiest obvious solution that my management suggest.I dislike having to debug something I wrote a few weeks ago (once I have forgotten the details), so I try to get stuff working as reliably as possible.
I can tell you what the bias might be - people with other backgrounds might treat software engineering and programming as equals, and thus have very vague idea of things like system reliability, scalability, failover tactics, deployments, etc., jumping at the quickest dirtiest obvious solution. Steer the conversation in a way where people become cognizant of your knowledge of application architecture and system-level design.