>Maybe I don't know enough C++ to understand this, but I don't understand why using fancier features would make you like the candidate more when they are making

>Maybe I don't know enough C++ to understand this, but I don't understand why using fancier features would make you like the candidate more when they are making mistakes. It's not about cool features. It's about using the correct modern features which make the code safer and easier to follow. Templates are a relatively advanced feature but trivial to write for such a case and I'm looking for a candidate who understands containers are typically generic and knows how to add the two lines. I take it as a marker of experience. There's no excuse other than inexperience or old fashionedness to not use smart pointers. Destructors are also a sort of minimal knowledge because they show that a candidate thinks correctly about memory management. There isn't really a score to what we do. And in all honesty the first few times we gave the test I didn't really know what to look for, this is my first time from the other side. But it isn't too much to expect a competent cpp programmer to know these things and I'm looking for candidates who are willing to use the open ended opportunity to flex their muscles, provided their code is well structured and doesn't have severe, obvious bugs. I don't claim that this is perfect but it seems suited to screen for the basic kind of knowledge we look for. These are not entry level positions either.