Disclaimer: I have no first hand experience with coding interviews and my knowledge of them comes exclusively from sources like HN.
Based on the title I expected advanced (and maybe less known) data structures with great (asymptotical) runtime or low memory usage—Something like Fibonacci heaps or Van Emde Boas trees.
What I got was mostly a primer on base 2 numbers, computer memory and basics of how we can arrange things in memory. The only topic in there that I would consider "advanced" was hashing. And I think it did a fairly decent job of explaining these things.
But my general impression of "coding interviews" was that the questions would generally go beyond the basics explained here. Maybe I have this perception because I have rarely heard a positive thing about those interviews and have associated that with being full of obscure questions.
Can someone with more experience in that area shed some light on this for me? Is this sufficient to get through (most) of those interviews?
My impression is that this is geared towards those trying to enter the industry, that have no academic experience with CS, and not for those already established.
Realizing this, I'd say it's enough. There are plenty of companies that don't even give coding questions, and many more that don't go beyond what's listed in the article. The only exceptions would obviously be what are considered top tier companies such as FAANG, Airbnb, Uber, etc.
I would definitely agree with your assessment of the target audience. I'm not sure if it's enough, though (depending on what it's enough for).
I think it's enough for someone who is just trying to understand the basics, but I wouldn't feel comfortable hiring someone for a qualified position who only just learned all of this (maybe just for the interview).
So why not call it Data Structures for Coders? Calling it Data Structures for Coding Interviews makes it sound like it's an answer guide to arbitrary brain teasers that are only useful for passing some test and have no application outside the job interview setting.
Not saying you are wrong, but it's pretty easy to not give something the optimal name. Sometimes your work is just more useful for some purpose other than the one you intended.
I don't disagree. My main complaint with the content of the article would be that they chose to introduce the cache at virtually the same time as memory in general. I found it very easy to follow for the most part and it gave some good intuition.
I'm just not sure if the title is accurate or (at worst) misleading.
Based on the title I expected advanced (and maybe less known) data structures with great (asymptotical) runtime or low memory usage—Something like Fibonacci heaps or Van Emde Boas trees.
What I got was mostly a primer on base 2 numbers, computer memory and basics of how we can arrange things in memory. The only topic in there that I would consider "advanced" was hashing. And I think it did a fairly decent job of explaining these things.
But my general impression of "coding interviews" was that the questions would generally go beyond the basics explained here. Maybe I have this perception because I have rarely heard a positive thing about those interviews and have associated that with being full of obscure questions.
Can someone with more experience in that area shed some light on this for me? Is this sufficient to get through (most) of those interviews?