1. Coding exercise. It was not difficult, so I passed it.

2. Pair programming. The task was not so difficult; rather, it was average. I was told that the goal of the task was to check my approach to developing/designing software. I designed a solution with classes, putting pseudocode for some obvious places. The interviewer was okay with that, as I asked if it was acceptable. After the interview, I asked the interviewer how they would approach the task and received the answer, "on the same way."

What I received in feedback was completely unexpected based on the above. It turned out that I was supposed to provide a finished, compiled solution and that I used pseudocode in some places (for obvious places, which was agreed upon with the interviewer). Also, if the solution was not okay, why did you answer that you would do it in the same way?

So, they are not clear about what they expect as a result.

1. See p.2

2. Deep dive session. I was not asked about something specific or about things that are important to them. I was asked to talk about my project. It looked like "storytelling." Any story can be told in different ways to show one aspect or another of how I work. As I wasn't asked what they expected, obviously, I was telling the story not from the right side.

1. Pair programming

2. Past projects story telling