After 3-4 failed onsite the pattern of feedback is "candidate is good/experienced in his domain/tech but unable to whiteboard properly." Please Review My Approach : This is what I do: A problem given. I Ask few questions Write a test case Jump to write a pseudo-codish Python/Java function. While writing it out/and talking loud, I "discover" if I need helper function/different approach and I start coding the helpers with an arrow mark By the end, I have the pseudo-codish/scattered code but not a fully functional code. Although every time, I get the crux of the problem... Example: ```Code A Streaming Function that reads a set of csv files as stream and counts character and words and outputs anytime it encounters a "~" as stream end``` My approach: 1) Write a mock file: "Adam", "John", "Jeremy" "Paul","Rick","David" ~ "bla", "bla", bla" 2) start writing code: def count_stream(char): halfway through I realize I need two counters so convert my code to Class with a helper While writing helper I realize how to backtrack etc In the end the code looks like ```class blabla: def __init__(self): some attributes: One scattered function ---> another scattered function.``` But throughout the journey of coming to solution : I communicate properly.... How should I tackle this as I am new in this game of whiteboarding and did not find relevant material to get trained.
That's uncalled for. This guy seems to be genuinely asking for feedback.
lol I mean you need to have a working solution
Agree with Oracle. Pseudo code & arrow diagrams are fine as long as you are discussing different approaches. But once you & the interviewer have decided on an approach, write the full working solution.
I normally leave the helper functions for the end. I just give the short overview of the helper function and code it later. Most of the time, interviewer stops me from coding out the helper function because they understand its trivial.
"not fully functional code" is your problem. Need to be able to solve the problems. Answer is leetcode