I received a HackerRank coding challenge link and scored 100%. Following that, I was invited for a two-hour onsite interview, which struck me as unusual given the absence of phone or additional onsite interviews. I was scheduled to speak with only two engineers.

One engineer posed a design question. I solved it within 20 minutes, and we spent the remaining 35 minutes chatting. If my solution was unsatisfactory, I question why so much time was spent on conversation instead of exploring better approaches. The second engineer presented a coding question, which was indeed a good one. I encountered a roadblock but could have resolved it. However, the interviewer offered a hint, which I took, and then I completed the problem. This session lasted 35 minutes, followed by 25 minutes of discussion.

Both interviewers appeared pleased, and my overall experience was positive up to that point. The next day, the recruiter contacted me with feedback, stating I lacked technical depth. While I can accept this feedback, the following points are perplexing:

1. Why was the onsite interview so short, involving only two interviewers and two questions?
2. If my answers were not satisfactory, why was so much time dedicated to chatting? You could have encouraged me to develop a better solution.
3. Why was there only one online coding test followed directly by a two-hour onsite interview?

In my opinion, the experiences shared by others are accurate. It appears the company interviews for enjoyment or to train its engineers. Otherwise, the process would have been more rigorous. Two hours with only two questions and significant time allocated for chatting doesn't seem logical. It's difficult to assess skills based on two questions and then provide feedback about "lacking technical expertise." I believe Pure Storage's interview process is a waste of time for candidates who take time off work, and their engineers gain experience from it. While not being hired would have been acceptable, the specific feedback given does not align with the interviewers' interactions.