I was just thinking this. If it's labeled as an optional skill or something like that, I see nothing wrong with it. Applicant has no reason to lie about it. Have confidence in their other skills. At the same time, we have this new thing called search engines. If a language can't be found, they'll probably figure out that it's trap. Even better for the company. A person who won't lie and/or can research out BS for themselves. Pretty good candidate thus far. Devs are supposed to be self-reliant to a degree. A good question for the interviewee to ask the interviewer too.
If it's labeled a "requirement", yea, they were inviting dishonesty. No one should bother to apply since they don't qualify instantly.
> No one should bother to apply since they don't qualify instantly.
I never assume the "requirements" are actually hard requirements to an application, and I encourage others in the job market to do the same.
Sure, if you miss 3 out of the 5 requirements listed you might pass on that application. But if you've got 4 out of the 5 requirements, and think you could accomplish the job as described, you should still strongly consider sending in an application. Don't lie on your CV that you submit, but you can still submit your CV.
You never know which requirements are actually hard requirements for the org, and which were just listed that way on the job listing.
Be aware when you do this that there are a minority of companies for whom the requirements are actually requirements, and you may get yelled at by an interviewer for "wasting everybody's time." Yes, this has happened to me. On the up side I now have a list of a few companies I know I won't work for unless I'm desperate.
The advice is still good; the requirements are really more of "strong desire" than actual requirements, and if you look at the typical requirements listing, its' unlikely that they will find enough people at the salary they offer to fit all of them anyways.
> and you may get yelled at by an interviewer for "wasting everybody's time."
They had an opportunity to evaluate your resume or CV before inviting you in for an interview. If it was a hard requirement for them, they shouldn't have invited you in for an interview. The only time you're really wasting is the time of the person who is screening resumes.
> Yes, this has happened to me. On the up side I now have a list of a few companies I know I won't work for unless I'm desperate.
I'm sorry that happened to you! What a terrible experience. It's definitely good to keep that list of places you know you should avoid.
> If a language can't be found, they'll probably figure out that it's trap.
If you're a qualified dev, you'd more likely conclude that it's a mistake on the part of whoever wrote the listing. I've seen skills listed like "Microsoft UML" or "Python, PHD, Nodes", so wouldn't think much of seeing "MOVA".
I consider myself fairly well versed (at least breadth-wise) in programming languages and general IT, and I'm still surprised at least once every six months when something crops up I've just never heard of before. The two most recent examples are Conan[0] and Slurm[1].
If you're the employer, you'd know that you put the non-sensical item in the job posting. If someone calls you out on it, then you know they at least are not bullshitting you. If you're the applicant and you feel strongly about it being bullshit, then the question is do you get bonus points for knowing that.
The how would know it doesn't exist is what separates the chaff from the wheat.
