Unless I'm being thick, I think the point of this parable is to question the developer, not the interviewer.
Despite using a bunch of fancy new language feature, name-dropping Knuth, and describing the solution for an hour, the result is code with no additional benefit and significantly worse maintainability.
Sometimes being smart doesn't have to look so smart.
Despite using a bunch of fancy new language feature, name-dropping Knuth, and describing the solution for an hour, the result is code with no additional benefit and significantly worse maintainability.
Sometimes being smart doesn't have to look so smart.