u/Difficult-Two-5009

I see them quite commonly in CVs a big keyword jumble of ‘skills’ usually programming languages, databases, frameworks etc etc.

I understand they make filler if you’re trying to increase CV length to a page but just curious what credence do other reviewers actually put on them.

(Personal view is the experience/projects trump it and I kinda disregard it because it’s hard to ascertain have you been doing it professionally for x years at a workplace, or was it a weekend tinker)

I’ve recently gone through the process (successfully) for a more dev role after a stint as an EM last few years and one of the many, many rounds was my first exposure of leetcode (couple of easies and couple of medium or hard).

Verdict: Leetcode sucks.

I’ve sat both sides of the interviewing table including as an HM over the years and I have literally no idea who the hell these are designed for - they seem completely abstracted from reality ‘do this to a low level data structure but within o(n)’ like yes, you should always aim to make code as performant as possible, but never to the detriment of maintainability or readability.

Just seems leetcode exists to make people good at leetcode? And tells you nothing about how good they are as a developer, especially when other rounds are paired programming and system design which with an interviewer hat on tell you far more.

Is it just me or am I just old and this is the norm now?