[aidenn0]

This makes no sense.

Just like having a drivers license is no guarantee you are a good driver, having many years of job experience programming is no guarantee you are a programmer.

On the other hand, you are liable for any damage you do to a car you rent, plus the company is fully insured in the case you do any damage and can't pay. Hiring and firing someone (which is the only real way to know if someone is a good developer) is very expensive.

Here's what it would be like if we hired programmers like we rent cars:

You walk in to a software company and are immediately hired under these conditions: "We'll take you on for 6 months, but if it doesn't work out you need to pay us back all of your salary, plus benefits and payroll tax"

[digitalmerc]

Actually it does, and spot on to boot.

He's not saying "don't find a good programmer." He's saying that the questions they ask get them no closer to finding out whether he is a good programmer.

[abstractbill]

He's saying that the questions they ask get them no closer to finding out whether he is a good programmer.

A lot of the time they're not meant to. They're meant to figure out whether he's a bad programmer (or bad cultural fit, or something else bad).

The cost of hiring someone bad is way higher than most people would guess. I've come to believe that in many cases the questions asked in an interview almost don't matter - they're just there to give you an opportunity to fail, or to say something incredibly dumb or ignorant or obnoxious so that the interviewer can quickly reject you and avoid an expensive mistake.

[slurgfest]

If you hire someone who is boring and has no obvious problem but isn't very productive, you have your ass covered. His lack of productivity is his fault. If you hire someone exceptionally useful with some notable problem, or even just some notable flavor someone doesn't like, it is something you should have noticed and you are liable. A lot of companies want an unblemished calf more than they want a Zed Shaw.

[TheCapn]

As long as the interviewer treats it like that I'd be fine with it. If they are playing things the way you describe then answering a question with "why does it matter?" would be a viable response and you'd be open to discussion about it.

The real world problem is that too many interviews follow the model because that's what they know from past experience themselves. They may not know why they ask such baseless questions, all they know is the answer they want and damn you if you don't give it to them.