[oytis]

I hate requirements about experience with specific technologies a lot as I enjoy learning new things normally, not doing what I have already done thousand times before.

But what's missing from such rants are good hiring criteria. Leetcode performance? Verifiable successful projects? Being able to appear as a smart guy to team members? All of these are problematic in one way or another.

[julik]

How about "you have some knowledge of stack X and you are committed to learn that particular stack and finding joy in using it"?

[oytis]

That's the happy case, yes. But now hiring is a competitive process, and you need criteria to compare candidates. Once you eliminate leetcode, and also eliminate biases related to candidate's class and background what you're left with? You'll have to compare how close their experiences are to the job they want. Still better than considering lack of experience with technology X a deal breaker of course

[anonymoushn]

at one company I was passed off to another team because although I wrote a correct solution immediately to some nontrivial problem in their preferred language, C++, I wrote it in a C-like style instead of using their preferred subset of C++ features (probably this aligns pretty closely with what most people mean when they say "modern C++", which I admitted prior to the interview that I had basically never used because my C++ experience predated a lot of these features).