[frostirosti]

You're kidding right? How much of your job is implementing hand rolled IO monads? I think it's very telling that you would hire someone who can understand IO monads but not understand the difference between traits and abstract classes.

How are code review with people like that? Where they implement their own logging system rather than using built in tools. That must be truly enlightening. Must be fun to maintain too. Especially when they do not understand or can even use the built in functionality of a language.

I think it's very telling that you think THIS of all things is the issue with interviews.

[csneeky]

If curious I would have gotten the question with Try and Either wrong (because I forget), and I don't really use Scala Streams so I don't know without looking at the API doc. The others would have been fine for me but all of that is besides the point...

It was also not my point at all that an engineer that knows how to build a construct like an IO monad in Scala, but doesn't understand traits/abstract classes (which would be funny and hard to find I imagine) would be preferable to anyone else...

And furthermore, I agree that we live in a world where teams and projects get hosed by architect astronauts. But that isn't the point either...

The point, my angry friend, is nothing more than the observation that I, with my skill set, would do exactly what I said: Be unable to answer all those correctly in an interview, and in the process I would not have been asked anything that would flesh out many of the other skills I have. Skills relevant to the language in question and, arguably, more empowering to an organization than those listed.