[Aurornis]

Identifying candidates who repeat buzzwords without understanding tradeoffs is easy. It’s part of the questioning process to understand the tradeoffs.

The problem with the comment above is that it’s not discussing tradeoffs at all. It’s just jumping to conclusions and dodging any discussion of tradeoffs.

If you answer questions like that, it’s impossible to tell if the candidate is being wise or if they’re simply BSing their way around the topic and pretending to be smart about it, because both types of candidates sound the same.

It’s easy to avoid this problem by answering questions as asked and mentioning tradeoffs. Trying to dismiss questions never works in your favor.

[dondraper36]

Yes, I would probably phrase it like this. "Under the current load, I would go super simple and use X, which can work fine long enough until it doesn't. And then we can think about horizontal scaling and use Y and Z". Then proceed with a deeper discussion of Y and Z, probably.

After all, interviewing and understanding what your interviewer expects to hear is also a valuable skill (same as with your boss or client).

[no_wizard]

Even better would be to clarify under the current load and if reasonably expected future load is similar, I would use X for Y reasons.

Sometimes the “trick” is in todays load is not tomorrows