Why's that? Aren't these basic knowledge items almost always able to be left unspoken? "Here is what we are trying to accomplish, and you must use a map in your implementation" never seems pertinent. There is faith in the people I work with that they will understand how to best implement something.
Furthermore, if there were some reason to bring up, say, a list then I could fumble around with some other ideas to get the group there. "I'm blanking on the term, but you know, the thing you can build with square brackets.", "Oh, you mean a list?", "Yeah, that!" But that doesn't satisfy the question posed here which specifically asked for the structure by name. In normal situations you don't need that kind of thing at your beck and call like you do when you are playing with a trivia master.
> I believe it to be a core competency.
And, to be fair, if I were knowingly about to enter a developer interview I'd probably brush up on the language ahead of time knowing that it is likely that an interview very well might want to talk about the trivial basic building blocks to weed out those who have never programmed before. But I personally haven't interviewed for a job in 20-some-odd years, so again, not something in the forefront of my mind before this discussion happened.
However, of note, the interview in question was for a people-based job, not a technical role. Who is going to think to study the technical language ahead of time in that situation? It wasn't pertinent to the job. The interviewer just went there because it was noticed the person once was a developer in a past life.
