They were Java developers so I think they were coming at the interview from the perspective of Java developers. I wish I&#x27;d known this beforehand as I could have markedly improved my answers by bearing this in mind and explaining myself better.<p>For example later on they were trying to test me on JavaScript type irregularities. I did not realise that `typeof null === &#x27;object&#x27;` or think this was important in practice (although I expressed no surprise as when I&#x27;m trying to test any JavaScript type I generally use a high-level interface to avoid JavaScript &#x27;wat&#x27; moments). They seemed to think I&#x27;d be doing if-elses at the top of each function in order to perform the type checks that Java would have given me for free. I mentioned that &#x27;flow&#x27; would be a better idea if you weren&#x27;t happy with duck typing, but this probably sounded like I was trying to dodge the question to a Java developer. In practice when you&#x27;re writing JavaScript code, it&#x27;s popular to be lax about this kind of thing and write code like `config || {}.property`.<p>In conclusion:<p>I think that Computer Science is useful but less useful here. I&#x27;m actually now mid-way into some Coursera algorithms courses for my own personal learning as I think they&#x27;ll be very valuable in other tasks.<p>I think the problem was that you could tell that they were primarily Java programmers by the topics that they gave importance. I&#x27;d say there&#x27;s a strong chance that they&#x27;ll hire somebody with a similar skill set to themselves and will not end up writing natural, best practices JavaScript.<p>People hiring in languages and domains they do not know well can bias themselves with the wrong kinds of questions and opinions. This seems to be a common interview failure case.