Passa al contenutoPassa al piè di pagina
  • Lavori
  • Aziende
  • Stipendi
  • Per le aziende

      Migliora la tua carriera

      Scopri le tue potenzialità di guadagno, trova lavori da sogno e condividi approfondimenti su lavoro e vita privata in forma anonima.

      employer cover photo

      Granular Energy

      Questa è la tua azienda?

      Chi siamo
      Recensioni
      Stipendi e benefit
      Lavori
      Colloqui
      Colloqui
      Ricerche correlate: Recensioni su Granular Energy | Offerte di lavoro di Granular Energy | Stipendi di Granular Energy | Benefit di Granular Energy
      Colloqui di Granular EnergyColloqui per Engineer presso Granular EnergyColloquio di Granular Energy


      Glassdoor

      • Chi siamo
      • Contattaci

      Aziende

      • Account Business gratuito
      • Spazio per le aziende
      • Blog per le aziende

      Informazioni

      • Aiuto
      • Linee guida
      • Condizioni d'uso
      • Privacy e scelte pubblicitarie
      • Non vendere né condividere le mie informazioni
      • Strumento per l'accettazione dei cookie

      Lavora con noi

      • Inserzionisti
      • Carriere
      Scarica l'app

      • Cerca:
      • Aziende
      • Lavori
      • Località

      Copyright © 2008-2026. Glassdoor LLC. "Glassdoor," "Worklife Pro," "Bowls" e il relativo logo sono marchi registrati di Glassdoor LLC.

      Aziende seguite

      Non lasciarti sfuggire opportunità e informazioni privilegiate seguendo le aziende dove vorresti lavorare.

      Ricerche di lavoro

      Ricevi suggerimenti e aggiornamenti personalizzati avviando le tue ricerche.

      Colloquio per Engineer

      2 mag 2025
      Candidato anonimo a colloquio
      Offerta rifiutata
      Esperienza negativa
      Colloquio difficile

      Candidatura

      Ho sostenuto un colloquio presso Granular Energy

      Colloquio

      Overall Experience: The initial interview was positive, but the take-home assignment left me frustrated. There was no opportunity to discuss or explain the solution once submitted, which made the process feel disconnected from how real problem-solving works. Without this dialogue, it’s hard to demonstrate your thought process and reasoning, which I believe is just as important as the code itself. I received feedback mentioning bishop move blocking as a major issue. There were also some minor issues related to class structure and redundant calls to canMove(). However, these could have been clarified if there was a chance to discuss my approach. The assignment was time-limited and unpaid, and the fact that LLMs were allowed made the whole exercise feel more like vibe coding. If the company is okay with using LLMs, then coding from scratch isn’t the point — it’s about how you approach the problem. This made me feel like the process was less about assessing true skills and more about checking off boxes. Advice to Future Candidates: Lack of discussion after take-home assignments is a major red flag. It limits the ability to truly assess a candidate’s thought process and problem-solving abilities. If LLMs are allowed, then the focus shifts from writing code to problem-solving. Don’t waste time on repetitive coding tasks. The process almost encourages vibe coding by not allowing candidates to explain their solutions, which doesn’t really showcase their deeper understanding Finally, the reply and assesment of the submission reeked of using LMMs, ironically.

      Domande di colloquio [1]

      Domanda 1

      ill copy and paste the submission, hopefully i can help out someone save a headache or one shot this interviewprocess down the line : You have been asked to write the “model/business rules” component of a larger program which allows two human players to play chess. As such, there is no need to worry about any aspects of the user interface nor persistence. You can complete this task in any programming language of your choice. There should not be a need to use any 3rd party libraries apart from a testing framework. You may use an LLM-powered coding assistant (but it is definitely not required). Your solution should be object-oriented and/or functional (not procedural). It should make appropriate use of the capabilities afforded by the paradigm you choose. Spend an absolute maximum of 2 hours 15 minutes on this task. Step 1 Model and create an 8x8 board object which can contain one or more pieces. Each piece is owned by one of two players. For now assume there are just two different types of piece - a bishop and a knight. Step 2 Allow a piece to be moved from one position to another. Validate that the piece being moved is owned by the correct player. The destination position can either be empty or occupied by a piece owned by the other player. If the destination position is occupied, then the piece at that position is removed from the board. At this stage, do not further validate that the piece is being moved correctly. Step 3 The bishop can move diagonally in any direction but is blocked by other pieces on the board. Modify the program to check that the bishop moves according to the above rule. Do not worry about special cases (such as the player being in check/checkmate). Submission Do not leave the code on a publicly accessible website such as github. Assessment Criteria We will be looking at a number of factors including: Correctness - does it run, does it correctly implement the rules? Overall design - how clean is the design, how easier is it to maintain, does it make appropriate use of the capabilities of the chosen design paradigm (OO/functional)? Code readability - is the code readable, does it make appropriate use of language constructs? Tests - are there tests at the appropriate level, how complete are they, how easy are they to understand and maintain? Documentation - appropriate level of comments and other documentation
      Rispondi alla domanda