The cafeteria is the best thing they have.
Some supportive and smart engineers.
Flexible working time.
They have fired competent and friendly managers and replaced them with obscure ones, without transparency and, in some cases, without even performing a technical interview. This has been done to take the company to the next level... well, they are drastically failing.
Firing became a normal practice, and so others are leaving. So who stays exactly? Think about it! I will keep this one for myself.
They seem to ignore the risk of staying with few and weak developers in a couple of months, without being capable of running the business. This is the most scary thing.
The product is nice but not great. Unfortunately, it's broken at its base, which makes it not attractive or usable by big customers.
Engineering: Average/weak with resistance to changes, lack of vision, and no common architectural patterns, where each team, sometimes formed by two persons due to the leavers, is responsible for the architecture too. If you like mutability, null references, and broken encapsulation, that's the place for you. Or if you like to hear, "We need to break the pattern because...." Code review is almost absent. Comments are constantly ignored for the sake of delivery and probably not even read. That brought me to stop doing it. A waste of time.
Leadership team: As a Colombian would say... ay no, qué horror. They don't even know how to organize an induction program (they didn't even know which team I was going to join, and I was left by myself, inventing things to do). They are creating a toxic environment where people just want to leave, and new joiners don't know what to do and are left to themselves, without guidance.
Take your conclusion by reading the cons of all reviews. If there are common patterns, something is wrong.
1. Chat with a recruiter. 2. Pair programming test. Unfortunately, they are not inclusive enough to offer a choice between pair programming and a take-home test. So, to pass step 2, you need to be able to write code under pressure while others are j
The interview process involved three stages. The first was a system design interview, where I was asked to propose solutions for a real-world problem the company was facing. I shared ideas on how to design the system effectively. The second interview
They had trouble with HR recruitment. The recruiter changed a couple of times, and it took quite some time to schedule the interview. They had likely outsourced recruitment to an external company. There was a coding challenge, followed by a tech in
1. Chat with a recruiter. 2. Pair programming test. Unfortunately, they are not inclusive enough to offer a choice between pair programming and a take-home test. So, to pass step 2, you need to be able to write code under pressure while others are j
The interview process involved three stages. The first was a system design interview, where I was asked to propose solutions for a real-world problem the company was facing. I shared ideas on how to design the system effectively. The second interview
They had trouble with HR recruitment. The recruiter changed a couple of times, and it took quite some time to schedule the interview. They had likely outsourced recruitment to an external company. There was a coding challenge, followed by a tech in