[keiferski]

I didn’t mean literally hostile. More like, “if this candidate would rather get into an argument or simply not complete the challenge we’ve presented them with, then they’re not going to be a good employee.”

Companies want to hire people that do things, not question everything, regardless of whether those things ought to be questioned. You’re being hired to achieve business objectives, full stop.

[trod123]

> Companies want to hire people that do things, not question everything ...

In fairness, following your stated requirements; no one would ever be hired.

There's a direct contradiction such that it can never be true.

Hint: Descartes Rule of Method

[withinboredom]

It depends. If you are more R&D, then questioning everything is exactly what you want. If you want random code in production that "works" then yeah, you probably want a doer.

[em-bee]

the problem is that the interviewer did not state that this is the point of this exercise. especially in an interview i would want to know why a particular question is asked, because that helps me decide how to answer. that or at least give clear instructions: "i want to see how you figure out the answer without a calculator"