"Having a conversation about a piece of code" sounds good, it proves you can read code and not just write it. Everything else you mention should have been taken

"Having a conversation about a piece of code" sounds good, it proves you can read code and not just write it. Everything else you mention should have been taken care of on your resume or you wouldn't be in the interview, BUT plenty of people can talk a good game. As an employer, do you really want to find out AFTER hiring that the candidate is incapable of understanding a problem based on an oral or written description; incapable of capturing requirements, asking the right questions, and forming an attack plan without thinking about it overnight? Testing someone's ability to follow along and contribute in real-time is part of the test, IMO. It does penalize "deep thinkers" and still waters, though. I've had candidates email me a supremely perfect solution the next day, and that's a positive data point too.