They can't ask you a complicated problem, because they don't have the time (nor do you) to solve a real problem that requires coding.

You are totally missing the point of what they are trying to ask you if you insist on using pandas for parsing CSV. Understanding the point of what you are being asked to do is critical to being a professional software developer.

They can definitely ask a complicated problem. On-sites are 4 hours long these days.

The ability to understand the underlying need behind a request is important to being a good employee. If a candidate fails completely to understand the purpose of a question during an interview, and in fact continues to argue against you as you explain it, they aren't a good candidate at all.

I agree with everything you've said, but that still makes it a bad and equally obtuse question. If they don't actually need a CSV parser, they don't need to know that you can parse CSVs, either (if you can - which is the other point - you might be a pretty good programmer if you can quickly parse a CSV, but there are tons of excellent programmers who can't).

And that was when I found out parsing something that should be as stupid simple as CSV file can actually be pretty complicated.

I understood the "purpose" of the question and I self-selected myself out of a role I would've been bored, micromanaged at, and probably not challenged at.

I’ll take someone who gives an idiomatic answer over someone who reinvents the wheel anyday. Who is likely to be more productive on the job?

Overgeneralized at best, LOLworthy at worst. Does this include palindrome questions for Ruby that require the use of linked lists? Because I had that from a CTO of a couple-hundred person company not two months ago.

That's like answering "how often do you need math?" to the question "what is 2+3?". It is an utterly, completely, stunningly trivial question that even a CS101 student on their first semester should be able to answer.

> used pandas, it's a 1 liner. You could see the wretched face of the interviewer since he was expecting a with open() as f: do_some_shit

I would be perfectly fine with the pandas answer, but my point is "csv parsing" wouldn't be my first question, I'd start with something much easier and if you managed that, I'd gladly accept pandas as a valid and then asked you to elaborate further (what does this pandas function do, how would you implement it yourself etc).

What are the downsides to using pandas? Is that worth brining in that large of a library for a matter like that.

That you couldn't yield on such a trivial, manufactured matter would make me wonder how you respond in a team environment on real matters in the face of adversity.

One of my go-to questions is "sort this array", and if the candidate types `Arrays.sort(input)` they get bonus points, because it shows they have useful knowledge of the language they'll be writing in.

    > I took my sunglasses off, looked him dead in the eye,
    > and said "Why? Why write your own method in
    > a vanilla language? Give me a good reason."

It's a synthetic interview question. Why does it suddenly need to be a production-ready CSV parser?

We don't have enough information to say whether these are bad interview questions, and it's really not the point.

Maybe the interviewer just wanted to see if you'd use good fd hygiene (`with open('file.txt') as f:`) and that you can stub out some toy parser code and speak of it intelligently. And that you wouldn't throw a fit when asked to write some code that a library like `npm install fizzbuzz` can already solve.

In my case about a decade ago, I became obstinate when given one of those silly math-trivia-puzzle problems like how many ping pong balls will fill an elevator or how long is a string. This was for a relatively senior track FAANG interview, where my background at the time was in HPC, distributed systems, and provisioning systems that were precursors to today's IaaS bread and butter. In my case, the interviewer was adamant that I derive some figures that depended on basic geometry and knowing the diameter of the earth and ratios of landmass to ocean surface. But, he wanted me to first SWAG these figures, after I told him I wasn't a geospatial geek and didn't memorize such facts.

I decided to be difficult. If I were somehow faced with such a task, I would first consult reference materials and even see if I could find the actual answer he wanted, since it sounded only one step removed from what you could find in the CIA World Fact Book or similar. Only if that failed, would I dig up source facts and try to derive an answer. I would focus on getting the answer, not on entertaining myself with a Martin Gardner puzzle at my employer's expense and risk. I would never have to make seat of the pants estimates and act on them rather than doing due diligence. I'd either have done homework, or if there was really no time (like some system availability crisis, if we pretend I was an ops person), I'd choose a pre-planned contingency action to make time.

They didn't go forward with an offer, and I felt a bit of relief at that.

I asked "Do you want me to do the simple thing, and use a library, or write code to do this?"

They preferred the latter. So I did.

As happy as it might make you to be snarky for the often silly questions you are asked, people are, if they are smart about it, looking to see your thought processes.

I recently got a question that I didn't know how to answer, so I started thinking through it aloud. I think they liked it, because they engaged with me during the process. Redirected my thought processes.

Again, good companies will do that. Look for every question, no matter how silly, as a way to show how you deal with situations, even ones you may not like. These are the moments for you to shine.

And after you get home, tell your SO/friends/etc. how wacky they are.

I think to some degree, a suspension of disbelief is reasonable for an interview, and it's not worthwhile to get tunnel vision on a particular problem asked. It's ok to point out that something is trivial with a particular widely used library or whatever, but if it is asked to implement something via first principles or whatever, it is a perfectly reasonable expectation to just do it for interview purposes as a simple mental exercise.

There's a few things going on here. First, there's a frustration from the interviewer who is obviously looking for the cookie-cutter answer to move things along. Second, there's a culture misalignment because they are looking for cookie cutters to do the job while I am not that. Third, they, along with OP, are obviously not a palindrome company nor a load-everything-to-lists company yet this is what they're testing. So again, culture misalignment.

At the end of the day, you are right, I self-selected myself out because I would not be happy at a place like such who are looking for cookie-cutter employees.

Creating a dependency to a library is not benign. Even if the library is easily available and mature doesn't mean that everyone has it, or that it will never change. Remember how "leftpad" broke npm?

Having that smug attitude towards the recruiter, assuming he is an experienced developers himself, should rise a red flag. Yes, sometimes projects have constraints (like "no pandas") that may seem stupid, and sometimes they are. But it is first important to understand the context.

So instead of asking "give me a good reason?" to the recruiter, give the reasons yourself. Invent a scenario where you actually need to rewrite that csv parser, bonus points if it is related to the company's business, and finally, write the damn code the recruiter wants you to write.

Can your pandas library handle that?

Your response is to flip the table and leave? If so, then good riddance.