I have no prior experience in interviewing people, so my current strategy is to just ask about everything on the résumé, ask to see any source code written by the candidate, and ask technical trivia questions like "explain the http life cycle" and "explain the difference between filter, map, reduce (javascript)".
If their resume includes overlap with your tech stack, ask if they understand why you would choose the tech you use, like "We use Y as a caching layer. What advantages does that give us over using Z instead". If they can't answer that's fine, but it helps you get an idea of their abilities.
In the JavaScript world I like to ask if candidates can explain what benefits there are to using TypeScript. Yes it adds strong typing, but what does that get you.
I definitely have a bias towards devs who can demonstrate that they have thought about the tools they use and why they use them. I also think it demonstrates that people have actually used the tools, without making them implement stuff from memory.
Those seem like pretty reasonable questions, though - they're at least things that would have come up at some point if somebody had actually been doing professional (web) development.
The interviews I hate are when they are so optimized I can’t get any information out of the process. Leakiness of data is something I desire greatly as the other participant and I think as an org I also strive to leak as much about our culture as possible in our interview process.
I would look for the following in a "fine" question:
1. It demonstrates knowledge of fundamental concepts or techniques.
2. It lets you distinguish the quality of answer/implementation rather than just works or doesn't.
3. It leads to natural follow-up questions that can demonstrate the candidate's knowledge or expertise.
4. It does not require fiddly code. (e.g. linked list pointer twiddling questions: they aren't hard but are easy to muck up with a stranger staring at you.)
5. If its unrelated to what candidates normally work on, the question should not hinge on knowing a specialized "trick" to change difficulty from hard to easy.
Atoi under that criteria:
1. Does not show much interesting besides a basic understanding of decimal numbers and writing loops.
2. It's hard to imagine much variability in the quality of responses. A "real" atoi implementation is not interview material: https://github.com/golang/go/blob/master/src/strconv/atoi.go...
3. I guess you could follow it up with questions on testing and error handling. Nothing super interesting comes to mind, but that could be lack of imagination on my part.
4. It meets this criteria.
5. It meets this criteria.
Perhaps you have some particularly good way of posing an atoi() question.
1. You need to know how to write a half decent test case, and, for full credit, how to write a recursive function. Check.
2. As alluded to in the previous point, we can judge the quality of the test cases. So, I think this is at least a provisional pass.
3. A really good candidate can talk about issues like Unicode, how to handle or avoid stack overflow, dealing with circular references, maybe think a bit about optimizations.
4. Unless you consider recursion to be "fiddly code," then we meet this criterion as well. I allowed people to use str() or repr() to convert things to strings, so there was no incidental difficulty there, either.
5. Nope, no tricks. Just use recursion.
So, it looks to me like I had a pretty okay question.
Anybody take issue with any of what I wrote, or have any suggestions for making it a better question?
As a follow up you could scope out how familiar the candidate is with alternate encoding options and what the trade-offs and use cases are. (BSON/MessagePack, Protobuf/Avro/Thift, FlatBuffers/Cap'nProto).
There is definitely room for 2x to 3x performance improvements on the implementation you linked by changing the main loop to not have each iteration depend upon the result of the previous iteration.
This really says nothing about the contents of the string. Is it decimal, then maybe they want atoi. They could be looking for a hash of the string as well. Or the levenshtein distance to the word "walrus". Or really, any number of functions that convert a string to a number.