[alex_lav]

> I think the part of the question that throws people is “most common”. It begins to sounds like a trick question, because it hat is the most common? Its going to very from code base to code base

That’s pretty textbook overthinking for an interview. The point is that it varies from codebase to codebase. Tell me about what you normally use and I’ll ask questions.

> Maybe id the question was name 3 data structures, any 3 it might sit well.

Trying to get every human to agree on the wording for an extremely easy and general question isn’t a worthwhile use of time though.

> But even so. The question did devolve into list of things somebody should know as a ex developer.

Interesting use of “devolve”. An an interviewer for a technical role, am I not allowed to have a set of required skills? And is a basic understanding of common data structures not allowed to be in that set?

[40yearoldman]

Languages and English is hard. So asking clear questions is important. Proof is in this conversation. As you seem to have suggested so much from so few words.

It devolved, because it went from what looked like a structured question with a finite expcted result, "Name the most common data structures" , to something more loose, a list of structures, any structures.

Further more, we agree, the candidate was trash, and I don't think the wording would have helped. But I do think a more precise question, or maybe a less loaded, or bias inducing question of "name some data structures". Namely, because "common" is subjective as I pointed out. If you are writing lisp all day, well, list are your most common. If you happen to be in assembly then registers are. So to be a better interviewer you don't want to taint the question with your notions.

[alex_lav]

> If you are writing lisp all day, well, list are your most common.

That's the thing though. _Any data structure is fine_. Say anything!

[randomdata]

Sounds like a trap. The first structure that came to mind was an r-tree. While I have a superficial understanding of when to use one, I have never needed to and would need to look up the details for the next question that is no doubt to talk about it in detail.

It came to mind first because I don’t know the intimate details and would need to look them up should I ever need that structure. That leaves reason to keep the name in active memory, unlike the structures you use daily, which never have reason to communicate outside of artificial situations.

[randomdata]

> And is a basic understanding of common data structures not allowed to be in that set?

It may not be unreasonable, but the question didn't ask that. Granted, it is unlikely the interviewer was skilled in interviewing and the ill-conceived question was born out of their own lack of ability in the the job they were thrown into doing. The reality is that very little effort goes into researching the science of hiring in the first place, and it is even less likely to find people who are both experts in technical matters and experts in what little we do know about interviewing. For how critical businesses claim the hiring process is, it is amazing how they will so often happily throw the first bumbling idiot they can find willing to accept the interviewer role into it like it doesn't matter.