I've known coders who would be lost without using a sophisticated IDE and who get stuff done, producing code that is clean, clear, easy to maintain, is well documented, passes all tests, and is generally superb.
On the other hand I've known coders who write code in vim and who also get stuff done, producing code that is clean, clear, easy to maintain, is well documented, passes all tests, and is generally superb.
The measure is in the work, not in the tools. The skills are not in how you produce the code, but in the code you produce.
Having said that, the very best coders I know don't use complex IDEs. But that's anecdote, not data.
I asked someone to hand code. This guy was so used to Dreamweaver, that he could not just remember certain code, like mysql query.
But on the DMW, he was fine, clicking away, getting stuffs done.
In that case it is their manager's responsibility to ensure they have access to the IDE. The important thing is how effective the combination of programmer + hardware + software + other working conditions is. I don't see that considering a coder in isolation is terribly useful.
It's the interviewer's job to decide what they're testing for. Some developers need an IDE - that does not make them bad developers.
An interviewer should ask
How can we help you show us why
you'd be good for this job?
Stupid tricks don't help you determine if someone can do a job. Tiny, trivial programming tasks don't tell you if someone can do the job, but can (sometimes) tell you if someone can't do the job.
Interviewing is hard, there are no short cuts. You need someone who is smart, will get things done, can interact usefully with others, and adds value. Sometimes using an IDE is the best way to accomplish that - why ignore someone just because they don't work the way you do?
IDE's tend to be used as a crutch. Every so-called developer I've ever met that relied on an IDE spent more time goofing around with IDE features than writing anything useful. And any code they produced ended up being junk that barely worked.
The best coders I've ever known use a simple file structure as their IDE. Those same coders tend to write all of their code in a plain text editor. Only for personal preference, the best developers usually prefer a text editor with syntax coloring and various matching/highlighting features.
Correct..Using an IDE for coloring, matching, highlighting okay. But using an IDE such as DreamWeaver and rely on its coding structure and when asked to hand code, wonder what the syntax of the mysql query statement should be, is not very welcoming. If this is the case, they cannot properly debug a code written by someone.
You either generally know the syntax of a particular programming language or you don't. There's nothing wrong with looking up the details of a particular function. Sometimes when I'm really busy, I find its easier to look up the details of a function than change my mental focus or train of thought. When that happens, I usually have a favorite book or website that details the language. Also, you don't need a fancy IDE for syntax coloring/matching/highlighting. A very simple text editor tends to be alot faster and easier to use.
I've known coders who would be lost without using a sophisticated IDE and who get stuff done, producing code that is clean, clear, easy to maintain, is well documented, passes all tests, and is generally superb.
On the other hand I've known coders who write code in vim and who also get stuff done, producing code that is clean, clear, easy to maintain, is well documented, passes all tests, and is generally superb.
The measure is in the work, not in the tools. The skills are not in how you produce the code, but in the code you produce.
Having said that, the very best coders I know don't use complex IDEs. But that's anecdote, not data.