That's pretty bad. Interviewing should also be about selling the candidate on the company. If they get an offer you want them to accept. If they don't then you don't want them bad mouthing you to other potential candidates.

If an interviewer insulted me or my language choice in an interview it would definitely make me wonder how they would treat me as a coworker.

That's the sort of thing that would make me strongly consider ending the interview, at least if I was going to be working directly for the interviewer. No need to waste more of their or my time than necessary, and I really wouldn't like working in that kind of insulting environment. And from a probably-immature perspective, the feel of power from being the guy saying "sorry, I'm not interested anymore" instead of hoping they call you back is nice.

Or, if I was really annoyed: bust out some Common Lisp for the next problem, then leave.

When I get stuff like that, I'm generally like "oh wait I'll try a real company". Not that C is not lower level for example. I love C. But since the interviewers are actual devs and managers at Google, it shows quite a bit.

I'm guessing it'd be nice starting writing in a lesser known language or even just go for some old arch object code (like 68k object code which is pretty simple to write, and the chance is high that the interviewer will be clueless and find this a bad joke - and yes i can write that as i did a lot of it 15years ago, its straight forward)

Then Google writes you as an "do not employ" person of course and say that you do not fit (while you declined them), but hey, honesty, balls, and being dumb sometimes feel good. Sounds like a true story.. oh, I know.

You should definitely mention things like this to your recruiter. Sometimes interviewers misunderstand or make a mistake, and that shouldn't be counted against you.

Obviously it's rational for this event to make you uninterested in working for Google, but if that's not the case, it helps to escalate your concerns or complaints.

That's a lame response from the interviewer, but you should probably have asked him what language you should use before doing it. If he did not say, then his question is underspecified (maybe to test you).

When I interview someone, I explicitly prefix coding questions with "you can just write pseudo-code or whatever you prefer" or "please use C/C++".

Duck typing makes for difficult debugging in large programs.

I do like Python but haven't used it for anything more than a few thousand lines.

The dynamic nature puts many errors into the runtime stage and increases verification complexity. Can be limited by static code checking, but grows cumbersome.

Static typing is a godsend when you're working with code that you only vaguely remember from the last time you worked with it a year ago. It also gives me much more confidence when refactoring: the compiler will find the callsites I missed.

python's loose typing can cause some problems when new people start contributing to a sizeable project, that can be caught earlier in languages with stronger/earlier type checking.

Not even close.

I'd say Go is, though.