I'm a developer not a compiler

Focus of Interviews: Syntax vs. Problem-Solving

• Many argue that memorizing syntax, APIs, or standard-library minutiae is a poor signal; “plausible” code and reasoning matter more than exact method signatures.
• Syntax recall is seen more as evidence of recent use in a language than of capability.
• Several contrast this with ML interviews that overemphasize precise math or library usage, instead of assumptions, trade-offs, and behavior changes when parameters vary.

Preferred Interview Signals

• Strong support for testing “detective work”: debugging skill, ability to read unfamiliar code, handle underspecified problems, and reason through systems.
• Examples include:
  • Walking through real-world debugging scenarios (e.g., curated Stack Overflow questions).
  • High-level problem-solving and system design discussions.
  • Probing experience with debuggers, profilers, tracing tools, build systems, version control, and testing strategies.
• Several note the rest of the SDLC (tooling, configuration, deployments) is harder and more predictive than raw coding trivia.

Story-Based Questions: Bugs and Opinions

• Popular questions: “favorite/most memorable bug you’ve fixed” and “strongest opinion in tech.”
• Proponents like them as conversation starters that reveal passion, debugging process, maturity, autonomy, and communication skills.
• Follow-up questions (how you found/fixed it, impact on your practice) are seen as where the real signal lies.
• Critics say these can:
  • Overweight memory, storytelling, and “being in the right mental state.”
  • Penalize people who don’t romanticize bugs or have few “strong” opinions.
  • Amplify interviewer bias and “cultural fit” filtering.
• There is debate over claims like “there are no wrong answers”; some call that misleading, others frame evaluation as a spectrum rather than binary.

Trivia and “Nano Questions”

• Some see tiny fact questions (primitive sizes, exact type lists, definitions of strong/weak typing) as gatekeeping or ego displays; answers are easily googled and rarely matter.
• Others insist such details are a proxy for deep understanding and for separating true practitioners from pattern-matchers or outright frauds.
• One subthread highlights that terms like “strong vs. weak typing” lack universally agreed definitions; a “good interviewer” would accept any answer that shows conceptual grasp rather than a specific canned definition.