I don't agree about the hour. I've done a programming test that took way more time (partially because it involved learning an entirely new framework). It was at a company where everybody gets the same test (and everybody solves it in a different way), and then presents their code to the assembled programmers of the company.

I still think that is the best way to interview (after a regular interview to weed out the real idiots).

I think the real thing that's suspect, is simply having to send in your code, rather than presenting your solution to a group of programmers.

I disagree. I think coding tests are a great way to judge candidates. But only if they are given proper weight. Nothing worse than submitting and acing a big coding challenge and then being told they don't think you're a good culture fit. Some companies employ such hiring practices and I think it is very unethical.

That's why I've soured on coding tests. After lots of employers didn't give me an interview after a coding test that a KNOW I aced, that's poisoned the well for me.

Now if someone gives me a pre-interview coding test, I mentally translate it to the employer saying "I don't respect your time."

Same here. I've been through the same song and dance. If something happens over and over and it results in my not getting an interview, much less the job, I'm not going to repeat it. Especially if it's time consuming.

If the company asks for a coding test, I politely decline, but I offer to provide them with a code sample instead. Very rarely has that not resulted in a phone interview and I didn't have to spend hours of my time on it[0].

[0]: per company. Write once, give to many scales better than coding tests.

Thanks for the feedback.

It took several hours. After an hour of examination of the data and research into the problem at their office I opted to make it a 'take home' test. They agreed and I worked on it the next day (hence the e-mail conversation).