I'm often surprised by what people will take umbrage at. It's one thing to decide that it's a seller's market, and that therefore you'll interview somewhere where they'll buy you lunch and offer you a six figure salary and generous share allocation after nothing more than a cozy chat. But it's quite another to become actively offended by the effrontery of a company demanding that you demonstrate the very skills they're hoping to hire you to apply on a daily basis!
What are people worried about? I have to say I can't help but assume the worst. Because what have they been doing for their career as a professional programmer, if when asked to actually write a program, they can't actually do it? Even with an example right in front of them?
Don't forget that in this particular example we have a supposed senior programmer! Somebody applying for this sort of job should, I feel, be able to actually program. Even if they've never seen the library before. In fact good candidates should be barely fazed by an unknown language! What is the "senior" bit for, if not this? At the very least, perhaps the candidate could admit that they seem to have found themselves interviewing for the wrong sort of role, and one that makes better use of their other skills would be more suitable? That might be a better tactic than storming off in a huff.
But I've never stormed out of an interview in a huff - so what do I know.
There's a reasonable expectation to have to demonstrate one's skills in an interview. Whether any given test or set of questions actually is valid for doing that is another matter entirely.
Put another way: it's just as unreasonable for a company to expect a developer's skills to be measured by contrived tests or to demand they spend any unpaid time at all doing "work" (e.g. projects), as it is for a candidate to expect a company to effectively kiss his butt and lay out red carpet just because he decided to apply.
What are people worried about? I have to say I can't help but assume the worst. Because what have they been doing for their career as a professional programmer, if when asked to actually write a program, they can't actually do it? Even with an example right in front of them?
Don't forget that in this particular example we have a supposed senior programmer! Somebody applying for this sort of job should, I feel, be able to actually program. Even if they've never seen the library before. In fact good candidates should be barely fazed by an unknown language! What is the "senior" bit for, if not this? At the very least, perhaps the candidate could admit that they seem to have found themselves interviewing for the wrong sort of role, and one that makes better use of their other skills would be more suitable? That might be a better tactic than storming off in a huff.
But I've never stormed out of an interview in a huff - so what do I know.