Historically, and if we're talking about someone with 30 years programming experience, this history is very relevant - programming has been a popular field for smart but antisocial/unsocialized nerds who had very few if any friends growing up and have spent much of their life alone at a computer.

For a person with that background, simply sharing a relatively small private room with a total stranger can be overwhelming. It doesn't matter what trivial test you're giving them, if they're not able to think. The test is failing to actually determine if the person can do the technical part of the job, instead it's testing how the person performs in close quarters shared with unfamiliar people.

The whole giving homework for technical vetting is a great way to get around this class of problems.

But what if you're looking to hire people who go outside sometimes and can talk to people and can write code too? Or should that be illegal?

It's not like you forego the in-person interview and don't learn what you can from that. The point is, by including a take-home portion of the technical interview you can get a better sense of the individual's technical abilities.

If, in addition to what seems to be a technically competent individual, you find they don't perform well in-person, then you take that data and weigh it against where your priorities lie for the position.

There's a huge difference in knowing "technically great, performs poorly with an audience" vs. "technically poor, but we only tested them with an audience".

Furthermore, it's not uncommon for people who experience anxiety during the in-person to loosen up as they acclimate to the office environment and their peers. These people can actually be some of the best contributors, and it can be a very costly mistake to misjudge them. This personality type tends to be quite loyal and averse to changing positions, because the whole process of interviewing and acclimating to a new environment is so stressful to them.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder in this discussion, are you having a bad day?

Not at all, I'm enjoying myself and the debate (while finding it kafkaesque that people are finding ways to defend failing fizzbuzz on an interview). How are you doing today? That might be the only legitimate point I've read in this chain so far - if you hire people too socially impaired to write fizzbuzz, they'll be less likely to job hop.

Now we're tacking on an additional aspect of the job that we didn't know about before. If the job requires a social interaction with people outside of the company then, of course, it becomes a factor. Let's not be silly in an effort to just be right and prove someone else wrong.

They should if they want those people, if not then don't. But if you don't, you shouldn't also complain there's a shortage of skilled people.

So hire everyone who can't function during the interview?

I know several really, really good programmers with pretty intense anxiety. Automatically ruling them out because of a poorly-formatted interview process would be a big mistake.

Could be like Richard Hendricks in Season1 huh?

What is working with them like?

I mean, they're people. I'm still close friends with a few of them, and I didn't like some of them. It's no different than working with anybody with a disability or an illness (or kids, or elderly parents, or any of the million other human things that can make you a less-than-full-functionality worker bot) - you make the necessary accommodations, work around issues when they arise, and live with it. Specifically, it involved toning down a bro-y, combative work environment (which was a change that I really appreciated).

I worked with a guy who had pretty bad autism and social issues. He was a great guy to work with, incredibly smart and a really nice guy.

He wasn't going to come to any works nights out or even lunches and like you said certain accomodations have to be made, e.g. access to a private quiet room for him at certain times... Able to work from home when he had to etc.

His father had to go to his interview with him, luckily the company allowed this. We have since gone our seperate ways but wherever he is working now got a great developer. I'd happily work with him again.

You could extend your attitude to any sort of disability couldn't you. Why hire someone in a wheelchair, when there is someone who could walk up the stairs in half the time?

Can the person in the wheelchair code fizzbuzz in an interview?

"Can they code it on the job" is the relevant question.

You can take the guy who starts frothing at the mouth when you ask him to code fizzbuzz, I’ll take the wheelchair guy who can code fizzbuzz during the interview. Deal?

When did anyone start frothing at the mouth?

Does it bother you that you don't know the answer?

Communicating in the office is quite different than communicating in an interview setting.

In your head and the head of those with extreme anxiety it is quite different. You're meet people who might be nice or not and chat a bit, you answer some questions, maybe there's a free lunch involved, you either get a job offer or you don't and you continue your search, and your life continues on without the sky collapsing

You could say that for almost any job, but somehow you don't see the same hyperbolic whinging in all of those fields, do you? And your claim isn't even true. It's very similar to the kind of code discussion you might have on the job. "How would you solve this?" "What if I try X, Y, and Z?"

This whole thing reminds me of a shitty superhero spoof movie from the 90’s - Mystery Men - one of the characters’ superpower is that he can turn invisible when nobody else is looking and he is naked

Not if you can find others who are just as good. And what's your better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code and not filtering out the good ones with anxiety?

Take-home tests. Lower-stress environments for coding tests - working on their own hardware, working remotely, no panel interviews, no actively combative/aggressive interviews. Also, cool aspect of that: all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone. And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix.

> Take-home tests.

But people are already crying over take-home tests being like working for free for the company, and then there's no way to prove they aren't cheating, which is a showstopper. That by itself is definitely not a "better suggestion for filtering out people who can't code".

> all of these options will make the interview process more appealing for everyone.

No for people who can competently handle an onsite interview and don't want hours of extra work at home.

> And if the justification for angry/combative/aggressive interviewing is "well, that's how our culture is", I would say the company has a bigger problem to fix.

Maybe you being so disingenuous makes you feel better, but interviews aren't "angry/combative/aggressive" just because someone asks to see some code on a whiteboard.

I've participated in a lot of interviews on both sides of the process.

In my experience, the whole process goes a lot smoother when there's a take-home exercise. It turns the in-person interview portion into a technical discussion about a recent mini-project unencumbered by NDAs and trade secrets.

If you can't quickly determine if an applicant "cheated" on the take-home exercise through a simple discussion, then you may want to recuse yourself from performing interviews.

If an applicant can't make enough time for an appropriately scoped exercise, I think it's likely they're unqualified or they don't value the opportunity enough to make time. Those are undesirable qualities the recruiting/interview process is intended to filter out.

I can't believe I just read this.

I hope to never work with you.

Thanks for adding nothing here. I'm glad I'll never have to work with you, too.