
Mythbusting Competitive Programming – You don't need to learn it - bssrdf
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/mythbusting-competitive-programming/
======
ksaj
Isn't the idea of competitive programming not about learning to be clever, but
about being such a good programmer you can come up with these clever things,
and have a fun outlet for it? Competitive programming isn't a goal per se, so
much as it is being able to compete is a result of actually being good enough
at something to _become_ clever about it.

Runners tend to be _good_ runners before they ever attempt to break world
records. Chain saw jugglers tend to be good regular jugglers before they
switch to chain saws and then attempt world records.

In a professional setting, clever is pretty much always stupid.

There's nothing wrong with competitive programming. But like juggling
chainsaws, it isn't worth much outside of pub talk. It is something fun for
those who have the skill, or enjoy seeing the skill demonstrated in
crazy/entertaining ways.

And most importantly, "Programs must be written for people to read, and only
incidentally for machines to execute." \-- Structure and Interpretation of
Computer Programs, MIT Press

------
Icathian
At this point, does anyone seriously consider LeetCode et al to be a "good"
way to pick candidates? The impression I get is that it's typically considered
the least bad option, at best.

The only insight I might add here is that selecting for candidates who are
willing and able to sink time into algorithm study is also selecting for
candidates who won't go home at 5:30 if you give them problems to solve. That
probably isn't an accident.

