Sure, there's a good amount to discuss, but I would argue it's too open ended.
I could also, as the grandparent suggests, talk about that particular topic for a long while. But as an interviewee it would suggest to me that they possibly are just spewing out words they heard around the watercooler. Either that, or it's a 'trick' question, due to the fact that they are not comparable.
I expect chefs could talk all day on the question: "What are the pros and cons of flour vs. forks?" That doesn't make it a good interview question.
I believe there is no such thing as too open-ended a question to ask an interviewee. If you're asked something open-ended you have a glorious opportunity to define the scope of that question yourself, and to frame it in terms of things you know. Better still: you get to throw the ball back in their court by asking supplementary questions.
The point of such an interview question is to foster dialogue.
Yes. I agree with this. A strategy I employ when interviewing is to run with the first open question. It informs the interviewer about my knowledge and experience and gets me out of the majority of senseless tech questions.
Better analogy would be "What technology would you choose for building a bridge". You should compare software engineer to construction engineer or architect and not to a cook.
I could also, as the grandparent suggests, talk about that particular topic for a long while. But as an interviewee it would suggest to me that they possibly are just spewing out words they heard around the watercooler. Either that, or it's a 'trick' question, due to the fact that they are not comparable.
I expect chefs could talk all day on the question: "What are the pros and cons of flour vs. forks?" That doesn't make it a good interview question.