I float between three or four programming languages on a fairly regular basis (within a year), and I use or explore as many different frameworks depending on wh

I float between three or four programming languages on a fairly regular basis (within a year), and I use or explore as many different frameworks depending on whether I'm fixing something from the past or researching something to use for the future. Similarly, I may have to go back and do some OOPish work, or I may be doing FP, or I may be doing plain integration glue scripting. There is no coding test which will identify the value I provide to clients. A coding test will make me look bad. However, if you instead give me a "how would you solve this" question, and I will ask questions and discuss strategies, then I will look very skilled and experienced. So yeah, I tend to take offense when companies want to test me with a "google style" (as far as they believe) interview. Frankly, if I'm going to have to pass a Google Style interview, then I'll just interview at Google and get a better job with a higher salary than what company Y is offering. I understand that for companies, hiring good developers is difficult. But I would argue that the supposed quality of the developers is only part of the equation, and that growing good managers is an even bigger problem. A great developer can die (or quit) under a bad manager, and a mediocre or weak developer can grow into a decent developer under a good manager.