If the candidate reads that this may be the case, asks for, obviously, that reason, and the interviewer confirms that they mean "any", then it's a red flag for that interviewer, at least, as a co-worker, if they go on to get upset over your choice, unless it's something where you're obviously taking the piss, like Brainfuck (the later suggestion of assembly probably counts as this, but at that point the interviewer[s] had already failed the interviewee's test of them, so, whatever)

But yes, if you're desperate for a job you should indeed just ignore any red flags and do your best to fit the perfect-cog mold and do whatever emotional labor is required to seem the way you think they want you to be, and take whatever abuse they offer with a smile. That's true.

When I did interviews, I used to ask for “any imperative language”. Most people chose C or Java, some chose e.g. Python and the best solutions looked very different from the C/Java ones. I did not deduct points for either; a good solution is a good solution.

I once had a candidate that chose Oberon, because it was the only language they felt comfortable with (by their own account). They fell through on the interview for other reasons, but this seriously made me consider to what degree they had any programming experience at all outside a few select school assignments.

Independent of that, if someone came with a solution in a constraint solver, my next question would be (as it usually was, regardless of approach) “and what is the runtime complexity of your solution?” and I'd be impressed if they had any nonobvious thoughts about that!

I've solved interview questions with one line of Bash before and gotten an offer. The question was something like "count all the files in this folder with a name ending in X". The interviewer was happy I had a quick solution and they could move on to talking about something more interesting.

This is just conflict avoidance and naivety. After a while you start to realize that there's a whole world of people just like on HN and *we hire people too*. No matter what you do, youll end up in the place you deserve. If you try to be sneaky, you will end up working for people who are either easily fooled or see right through how to exploit you. If you let your nerd shine you'll end up with people who love your nerdiness.

I don't think the fundamental dynamics change by seniority, just that after some level there may simply be a smaller pool.

From the interviewers perspective, it makes sense to reject a candidate if they see any possibility it could be a flop. A bad hire is going to frustrate the team and look bad to the company, missing the best candidate is just going to result in hiring their next best pick.

> As someone just starting out, the general feeling among my peers is that I must bend to the interviewer's whims, any resistance or pushback will get you rejected.

I guess this is very context dependent but I can also see "bending to the interviewer's whims" backfiring if they see you're just trying to flatter them. I could see some interviewers valuing that you can explain your point if it's framed in a way that shows you are both observant and easy to work with. If it's framed as a more aggressive kind of pushback, yes that's going to get you rejected.

But yeah, I can also see that if you're willing to take any offer at any company as a junior just to get your feet into the industry most interviewers may not be specially smart and resisting is likely to go wrong.

Of course, my team also writes SDKs in a bunch of different languages, so it makes sense. Even if that weren't the case though, I'd be stoked. To your point though, early in your career, I get your viewpoint. It's hard out there to get a foot in the door and you have to seize opportunities.

But interviews are bidirectional. The company is deciding if they want me, and I’m deciding if I want them. If I chose to use Self or Forth as the whiteboard context for the conversation we’re having, it’s deliberately to make the interviewer think, and hopefully learn. If the experience of thinking differently about a problem (that they chose!) and learning something new is a negative signal to them, that’s fine —- it being a negative signal to them is a negative signal to me, and I don’t want to be there anyway! If they’re excited, and intrigued, and give “12 o’clock” feedback — well, that’s the team I want to work with. So I’ve helped us both accomplish our goals (making accurate assessments about fit), and aligned our metrics along the way.

This is not what you see in practice. Trying to hire, the view is very much different, in my experience. Every candidate has strengths and flaws, it's much more of a... constraint problem!

The idea that there even exists a perfect candidate is one of the biggest issues with hiring practices in tech these days.

I, for one, would be extremely impressed by a candidate breaking out J or Prolog for a constraint problem. But I'm also not a typical hiring manager for sure.

I feel like in practice, unless you're an established, senior professional in a high-paying, in-demand field with a network to rely on, this would go something like:

> What is it really like to work there. How much notice do you need to give before taking vacation? Do they really give pay raises? How often do they lay people off? What is the dress code? Do they let you take time for your kids school activities?

"Candidate ABC seems too demanding and picky, constantly inquiring about irrelevant specifics. They would be a bad fit for our company culture. I advise going with candidate XYZ instead."

I started giving interviews again and im surprised how many people dont ask anything. I'm an IC, not a hiring manager, and only evaluating a specific thing, (technical assement) and still nothing really.