This article is interesting because I completely agree with the underlying point but completely disagree with the implementation. The specific problems that oc

This article is interesting because I completely agree with the underlying point but completely disagree with the implementation. The specific problems that occur in a programming interview were crafted because when the first developers were working on C code, that is what you needed to know to be able to make a program. As time has passed, our languages no longer have the same data structures and algorithm requirements, but we still ask the same questions because we have cargo-culted the interview. And yet the author is entirely correct. > "Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships." ― Linus Torvalds Knowing data structures is incredibly important. It's just _different_ data structures. We need to stop learning backward looking algorithms and start learning forward looking algorithms and data structures. Likewise, that same anti-sunk cost thinking is correct. John Carmack, for instance, is well known for having gone on "programming retreats"[0]. These are tasks that will not pay-off for his current project, but will allow him to change his thinking over time. The next vacation I am going to go on I am going to attempt to learn microKanren, not because it has any value to my current work, and not because it has value to me getting a new job. I learn microKanren because I expect that I am going to learn something fundamental that the Torvalds quote above is hinting at. If data structures are so important, can we get to no code? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16518726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16518726