> I tried saying "what if functions have the same name"..he spouted off about "how compilers are smart enough to know what the programmer wants based upon param

> I tried saying "what if functions have the same name"..he spouted off about "how compilers are smart enough to know what the programmer wants based upon parameters provided [...] This sounds like a potentially challenging social situation! On the one hand, your preference for more explicit syntax has a lot of real merits, e.g. avoiding naming collisions as you've stated. But, if the interviewer's ranting and not quite willing to give due consideration, how do you handle the conversation (besides walking away)? I think I'd take it like this: 1. Let them vent a bit. 2. Make an analogy to [weak-vs.-strong type systems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing). 3. Acknowledge the merits and opportunities to benefit from the interviewer's preference (which is analogous to weak typing). 4. Suggest why you feel that, despite their own position having merits, you lean toward stronger syntax in your own coding. 5. Point out that you fully understand the weaker syntax and would be able to use it if called for on-the-job. Since C++ is strongly typed and you're presumably interviewing for a C++-based position, you might focus on a consistency-of-design argument, perhaps gently putting forth the perspective that weaker syntax makes source code more script-like.