← Databricks Interview Insights
My first instinct was to just track the head and recompute everything, which would have been a mess.
Start by clarifying the game rules and constraints (grid size, food positions, initial snake state, direction handling). Then design the data structures—a deque for the snake body and a set for O(1) collision checks—and implement move(direction) with careful edge-case handling for wall/self-collision and food consumption. Finally, discuss complexity, test cases, and possible extensions like multiple food items or undo.
Pro tip: Explicitly separate game state (snake, food, score) from movement logic, and mention that using a set for the snake body gives O(1) collision checks—this shows you think about performance and clean design, which interviewers at Databricks value.
Ask about grid dimensions, initial snake position/length, food placement rules (predetermined list vs. random), direction semantics (absolute vs. relative), and what happens when the snake fills the grid.
Use a deque (or list with head/tail pointers) to represent the snake body for O(1) add/remove at both ends, and a set (or 2D boolean array) for O(1) self-collision checks. Track score and a pointer/index into the food list.
Compute the new head position, check wall collision (return -1), check self-collision (return -1 unless the tail is moving away), then update the snake: if food is eaten, grow and increment score; otherwise, remove the tail. Return the current score.
Consider cases like reversing direction (if allowed), snake length 1, food at the new head, and the snake filling the entire grid. Walk through a few moves manually to verify correctness.
State that each move is O(1) time and O(n) space for the snake. Mention possible extensions: multiple food items, undo functionality, or rendering the grid.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.