The point of the interview is not to answer "Can this candidate find and fix this bug?" but rather "what is the candidate's approach to fixing unknown problems?"
A good performance looks like making a hypothesis for where the bug is, testing that hypothesis, and repeatedly narrowing in closer and closer. Finding and fixing the bug is irrelevant!
A bad performance might look like
- running out of hypotheses for what might be causing the bug
- making hypotheses, but never testing them
- failing to interpret the result of their test of the hypotheses (thinking it confirms one thing, when it doesn't actually confirm that, or it confirms the opposite)
Sorry, but do you have any data that shows 'great' candidates run tests and use your approach of finding / fixing bugs? Read the book 'Coders at Work' which describes some of the best developers of all time - most of them use print statements to find bugs / debug. Btw, I've solved bugs in 2-5 minutes which some developers spent hours or days working on (to their amazement) -- I've done this countless times in the past without using code or any debugging / testing tools -- all it took was reading the code and figuring out in my head what was going on and which data elements could introduce problems -- so I suppose I belong in your list as well? Sorry I just want to see the thought process here, to me it makes 0 sense and all the HN commenters commending the parent article are also making me absolutely scratch my head since the suggested process makes many many assumptions without having any data to back them up.
A good performance looks like making a hypothesis for where the bug is, testing that hypothesis, and repeatedly narrowing in closer and closer. Finding and fixing the bug is irrelevant!
A bad performance might look like
- running out of hypotheses for what might be causing the bug
- making hypotheses, but never testing them
- failing to interpret the result of their test of the hypotheses (thinking it confirms one thing, when it doesn't actually confirm that, or it confirms the opposite)