>> Also your flippant, dismissive attitude on quite important CS concepts wouldn't take you far.
Please try to avoid this. We can discuss without resorting to attacks.
>> "There's no point in testing for X or Y because ... e.g. we won't need X or Y to perform the job we are being tested for"
That's what most people are arguing for I think, so I agree with you there.
>> not being able to recognize what BFS even stands for in the first place is enough to raise a red flag anywhere.
By doing this you are throwing away developers that have made their respective companies millions in revenue. It's not hypothetical. One day, a non-CS trained developer will come across a tree and use it. And then they'll learn.
Please try to avoid this. We can discuss without resorting to attacks.
>> "There's no point in testing for X or Y because ... e.g. we won't need X or Y to perform the job we are being tested for"
That's what most people are arguing for I think, so I agree with you there.
>> not being able to recognize what BFS even stands for in the first place is enough to raise a red flag anywhere.
By doing this you are throwing away developers that have made their respective companies millions in revenue. It's not hypothetical. One day, a non-CS trained developer will come across a tree and use it. And then they'll learn.