> I think testing algorithmic questions is certainly evil, but it's a necessary evil because all other methods are either too time-consuming or unrealistic.

> write a depth first search and explain its time complexity.

Part of our test goes "here's a function, in plain English what does it do?", and then "there's a few bugs in this implementation, what are they and how can they be fixed?"

I think there's a lot of alternatives to traditional algorithmic questions that just don't usually get considered. This one I liked because it involves things you'd actually do day-to-day: Reading other people's code, figuring out intent, and finding/fixing bugs.