Phone interview. I talk about LiveJournal too much. All our jokes came true: he started asking me a programming question and I cut him off and finished describing the problem myself. I had just been discussing that exact problem with a friend, who had just had it in one of his interviews. I know they're trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, but I wish there was a better way to do it.
And all this OCaml, along with my influential prof., have conspired to give me a vague distaste for OO. This is dangerous when talking to people who don't really care about programming languages, because it's hard to for them to tell "very comfortable with it and understand it up to its limitations" from "don't understand it and are badmouthing it out of fear".
The question he asked that made me think of that was one about inheritance versus "composition". I wanted to say "inheritance is not the magic wand of code reuse" but I don't want to sound like a heretic. But I had just read this great paper from Jacques Garrigue, one of the OCaml maniacs, and it's been on my mind... ["...This is due to the fact traditional variants provide only disjoint sum, while union of polymorphic variants provides coalesced sum, required to handle the sharing of a common ancestor in multiple inheritance."]