>Thus, self fulfilling prophecy: you don't need to know these things because the industry punted on the problems you'd need these things to solve, or deferred t

>Thus, self fulfilling prophecy: you don't need to know these things because the industry punted on the problems you'd need these things to solve, or deferred them to other departments. Web apps, for example, are often very animation light, or low on more advanced graphics, because no one knows the math to make these things happen anymore aside from using a library to make a pretty chart. Since your competitors are in the same boat, there's no pressure to change that. And then those folks feel its dumb to ask these questions in interviews (They don't need it!), and the cycle keeps going. I've heard a lot of post-hoc rationalizations for why the "google style academic interviewing fetish" is more rational than "ask interviewee to perform tasks or answer questions relevant to their job" but using it a justification for continuing the tradition of wheel reinvention in the javascript ecosystem has to be the best. >"Why would I need these if Im building forms in javascript all day!". Well, maybe if more people in the team knew how to do more than build forms, we could try and build something fancier than forms. Sadly for the aspiring academic fetishist, building non-fancy forms all day is what a lot of businesses want.