>But at good companies like Google good architecture is a given.
Absolutely not. Google’s interview process and inflow of fresh graduates does not bode well for good architecture. Having spent time at G and FB, I can certainly tell you that employees at both are no better at architecting code in a sane way than SWEs at other companies.
Code architecture requires experience. Google does not.
I think the hiring bar at places like Google and FB is astronomically higher than almost all other places - they definitely have generally higher skilled people there on average.
Checking for memorized algorithms and an MIT degree do not guarantee good code.
I've seen more horrible code at a FAANG company than in many other places. Complete absence of overflow analysis in C++, race conditions, architecture astronauts, exploding code bases that no one understands any more.
Features are being added on a daily basis, basically what matters is a high line count.
The process does not encourage experience but mainly the ability to remember recent academic programming puzzles. The first comment is correct even though they do have many existing experienced developers that would be in a position to provide architectural advice.
The hiring bar at Google does not test for the ability to organize code coherently. The skill is completely unrelated to algorithms and data structures.
It’s like requiring candidates to deadlift 500 lbs and then assuming it means they can all run marathons.
Absolutely not. Google’s interview process and inflow of fresh graduates does not bode well for good architecture. Having spent time at G and FB, I can certainly tell you that employees at both are no better at architecting code in a sane way than SWEs at other companies.
Code architecture requires experience. Google does not.