First interview with HR for about 30 mins at their headquarters, then another technical interview for one hour sharp, the next day. The 3 interviewers were very nice and supportive, but their tests comprised code snippets printed out on a sheet of paper, where I would have to also answer or write code by hand, with a pencil. Needless to say I've always hated this, as there are a LOT of things that you miss or simply have a hard time thinking about unless you're sitting in front of a computer. Also, all questions on paper were very very easy apparently, but all had tricky syntax errors or trap-like things, which after a certain degree defeats the purpose in my opinion. All in all the 3 interviewers were very kind and helpful, but the tests were not productive at all, starting with the "programming on paper" approach which I always was against and finishing off with questions that would require a real compiler to show the syntax or conceptual errors in the code, making someone mentally emulate a compiler not productive at all, as most people would have a hard time answering that on paper, while all of us would find a solution in 1-2 minutes if we were to sit in front of a PC, therefore on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being excellent, I'll give 10 for the people and 3 for the testing approach.

The hiring process spanned four weeks, commencing with an initial communication, followed by a technical skills assessment, and concluding with a technical interview conducted by an engineer. Lastly, I spoke with the project manager, but this was problematic because the manager had a poor level of English. After this, they changed the required English level from B2 to C1.