The interview process included:

• 30-minute bug-finding test.
• Phone screen with a manager.
• 6-hour coding challenge in C++.

This was the worst experience I've had in a long time. I am a very seasoned C++ developer with many years of industrial-strength C++ coding under my belt. Up to the 6-hour challenge, everything was smooth. The 6-hour challenge was a nightmare. The question they provided was very easy, but they imposed many absurd restrictions, such as not being able to use the C++ standard library at all. This restriction is what made the challenge take so much time, and it didn't make the question any more interesting – just long and tiring.

The idea was that you write the code and send it to the tester, who runs it for you and tells you if you passed the tests or not. I was able to get my code to pass all the tests, and I wrote it very cleanly. Despite all this, they rejected me for a bogus reason related to a human mistake I made towards the end of the challenge when I accidentally sent the wrong file to the tester (after time), which caused the tests to fail. I immediately sent him the correct file, but apparently, that wasn't okay with him, so he failed me. Not because I didn't succeed in getting correct code, not because I failed the test cases, but because I accidentally sent the wrong file (a rogue copy that I had).

Yes, over 6 hours of useless work on an idiotic exercise with ridiculous constraints that are irrelevant to anything, just to be disqualified for a stupid mistake. Yup, that's SpaceX for you guys. You decide if you want to engage with these people. I have made up my mind never to apply there again.

The coding challenge requires you to solve a not very complicated problem with many restrictions, including not being able to use the C++ standard library. I can't say more than that.