> Sure, those statements (just use an existing library) are what you'll do in practice especially as a beginner. I think it's really not about "beginner" vs. "

> Sure, those statements (just use an existing library) are what you'll do in practice especially as a beginner. I think it's really not about "beginner" vs. "expert", but moreso about the specificity of your role. If you're tasked with making general cloud services, it's probably fine. As your role gets closer to core systems/algorithms engineering, obviously that changes. > But there is value in asking these kinds of questions. There is value knowing, but the dynamic of an interview make things like this harder to ask/harder to answer. > One is "do you know what's going on under the hood?" On another post I just saw a comment in which someone advocated counting the number of occurrences of something in a list by filtering it and then getting the length of the result. This is almost certainly a terrible solution as it allocates memory (which has to be freed) in what can be done in a single quick pass. In the real world the validity of this solution depends on its input and use. Also in the real world, especially if you're not on one of the above-mentioned specialist teams, it's usually more important to be readable and maintainable instead of just purely performance oriented. So a single pass solution that's harder to grasp at a glance becomes less desirable than multiple passes as long as your performance requirements can afford it. > By asking you such a question the interviewer can learn if you have some idea of the tradeoffs and why something might be a good or bad idea. Totally, but the issue becomes "Can you figure out an algorithm on a whiteboard", instead of the (as you've already agreed) correct path of "Can you work through tradeoffs of one implementation vs. another". I think this question could pretty easily be presented in a way that isn't a quiz and also allows the programmer to demonstrate their problemsolving ability without seeming adversarial.