There were three technical rounds and a hr round following the initial online assessment.
Technical Round I
In the first technical round, the interviewer was a mid-senior level employee. The interview began with a brief introduction, after which he asked me two dsa questions. The first question was a medium-level dynamic programming problem, a twisted variation of the coin change problem. Initially, I explained the brute-force recursive approach and was then asked to optimize the code. I proceeded to code the solution in a compiler and performed a dry run to demonstrate its functionality. Then he asked me another dsa question involving a binary tree problem similar to "amount of time to infect a binary tree." I described my approach, wrote the complete code, and executed a dry run with the provided sample test cases. Additionally, the interviewer posed several OOP questions, such as whether a constructor can be virtual, whether a destructor can be virtual, asking me to explain the reasoning. He also inquired about static variables asked me about the significance of virtual keyword and then he concluded the session with a puzzle. This round lasted about an hour.
Technical Roud II
The second technical round was conducted by a senior-level engineer and lasted approximately an hour and a half. The interview began with a brief self-introduction, followed by a discussion about my experience in the first round. To my surprise, the interviewer then presented a real-life design problem, which was different from the typical algorithmic questions I had anticipated. The problem involved optimizing the declaration of a variable used in several nested function calls to ensure it was placed in the most efficient location for accessibility and performance. Initially nervous, I gathered my thoughts and began to analyze the problem.The interviewer asked which data structure I thought would be most appropriate and encouraged me to explain my logic. I deduced that the situation could be represented using an n-ary tree, where each function call acted as a node. After detailing my approach, I proceeded to code the solution, demonstrating how to declare and use the variable efficiently within the nested functions. Following the design problem, the interviewer posed a medium-level linked list question, which I answered by explaining my approach and then coding the solution. The round concluded with a logical puzzle.
Technical Round III
The third technical round took place a week after the second and was conducted by a senior-level engineer, lasting about an hour. It began with a brief self-introduction. The interviewer then delved into object-oriented programming (OOP) concepts, asking me to describe the four pillars of OOP—encapsulation, abstraction, inheritance, and polymorphism—using suitable code examples for each. He followed this with questions on more advanced topics like the virtual table (vtable), the diamond problem, and complex questions on runtime polymorphism, challenging my understanding and application of these concepts. After the OOP discussion, the interviewer presented a design-based problem. The scenario involved a survey conducted in 2010, where data was collected about the number of infected people and healthy individuals. The challenge was to determine how many people remained healthy and how many had become infected over the years, given that infected individuals could transmit the infection to their acquaintances. He asked me to identify the most appropriate data structure for this problem. After considering the requirements, I suggested using a graph to model the relationships and infection spread. I then explained my logic for solving the problem and proceeded to write the code to implement this solution.
The final round was a HR interview, conducted after the third technical round. This interview focused on assessing my soft skills, cultural fit, and overall suitability for the role within the organization.
