[gharial]

I really couldn't follow his logic at all. Being able to come up with a working (perfectly correct) solution somehow implies a developer is probably "dumb" or "lazy"? As if a truly "smart" or gifted programmer would be unable to come up with a solution because they're just oh so intelligent and clever. You either know how loops work or you don't.

[JoeAltmaier]

Most smart programmers I know would prefer to product a good, or even the best, solution instead of any of the prosaic solutions. Unable to come up with a solution? Probably not. All the given examples are pedestrian. A really clever solution would recurse or search the web for a matching solution page or hash the solution space into a minimal table or something like that.

But agreed a proper programmer would never fail to produce a correct solution.

[kstenerud]

That's sort of what I'm getting at. There are two kinds of smart programmers: Those who look for every opportunity to be clever, and those who are satisfied to build pedestrian solutions until clever code is called for.

If you're going to build a clever solution (which almost by definition increases cognitive load on anyone reading or maintaining the code), you'd better be able to defend your actions. Performance is never a problem until it's demonstrated to be a problem.

[wtetzner]

Yeah, I'd say only go for a non-obvious solution if the result is at least as readable and maintainable as the obvious solution.

[JoeAltmaier]

This wasn't a case of work-for-hire. This was an interview situation, where its exactly your cleverness that is being examined. What do you do then? Pretend to be dumb?