To be honest I have a feeling you did great in this process and it's a shame they made up their mind mostly by judging the very last part of it.
Plus, I always feel like there's a lot more to a coding exercise than the exercise itself: how the candidate is behaving, whether they're being honest (or not) about what they know and humbly don't, etc.
What bugs me a lot when jumping through the hoops of hiring processes is when companies focus more on what you know by heart/already learned than on your actual potential for what comes next. We don't spend our days solving problems by heart without internet or colleagues to collaborate with, and being a developer is not about being alone with one brain only in a cave. Thus, the coding exercises often feel unrealistic compared to our day-to-day as developers, and not so relevant.
Of course, people who ace them are very good and competent but does that mean we can (or should) rule out other applicants?
I had the exact same feeling "Despite the challenge, I did super well".
The theory which makes most of sense in my mind (which some people comment it out) is that they had another candidate with the same profile as me but he/she went much better than me on the code.
We don't spend our days solving problems by heart without internet or colleagues to collaborate with, and being a developer is not about being alone with one brain only in a cave.
That's totally true, even when I'm working a by myself and I don't have someone to ask help I have much more time and resource to figure out the problem.
The best interviews I have ever had was about implementing a tiny project or debugging apps to solve some bugs in a pair programming mode. I think it was much more closer with what I was supposed to do if I were hired.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
To be honest I have a feeling you did great in this process and it's a shame they made up their mind mostly by judging the very last part of it.
Plus, I always feel like there's a lot more to a coding exercise than the exercise itself: how the candidate is behaving, whether they're being honest (or not) about what they know and humbly don't, etc.
What bugs me a lot when jumping through the hoops of hiring processes is when companies focus more on what you know by heart/already learned than on your actual potential for what comes next. We don't spend our days solving problems by heart without internet or colleagues to collaborate with, and being a developer is not about being alone with one brain only in a cave. Thus, the coding exercises often feel unrealistic compared to our day-to-day as developers, and not so relevant.
Of course, people who ace them are very good and competent but does that mean we can (or should) rule out other applicants?
I had the exact same feeling "Despite the challenge, I did super well".
The theory which makes most of sense in my mind (which some people comment it out) is that they had another candidate with the same profile as me but he/she went much better than me on the code.
That's totally true, even when I'm working a by myself and I don't have someone to ask help I have much more time and resource to figure out the problem.
The best interviews I have ever had was about implementing a tiny project or debugging apps to solve some bugs in a pair programming mode. I think it was much more closer with what I was supposed to do if I were hired.