Btw, I use Emacs much more than an IDE, and much of the knowledge I have for syntax is built into my typing fingers.
Btw, as far as I'm aware, Google didn't traditionally allow coding on paper--they always required coding at a whiteboard. As I understand it, Google Boston softened this requirement because it's rather counter to MIT culture. In four years of undergrad schooling at MIT and quite a few additional classes as a special grad student, no one ever made me work on a whiteboard, or do any kind of work at all with someone staring over my shoulder.
I have two whiteboards and a chalkboard at home; I never code on such contraptions. (I like to draw pictures for programmers, but using Balsamiq or something.)
Now, obviously if I were in a situation where showing off whiteboard-coding were useful to me, I'd practice until fluent. But it's so bizarre, this fetishization of whiteboard technology.
Maybe it's good to communicate using pictures, rather than symbols. But if that were the real reason for whiteboard interviews, interviewers would speak of pictures; not whiteboards, nor syntax. Or one can argue that companies like rely on whiteboard tech to communicate; but then why not ask prospective workers to practice it as they would vi or emacs? Or spread the gospel somehow? Is this some weird entrance test, to see if a candidate proactively adapts to this weird obstacle?
As an interviewer, I'd feel I've ironically failed a meta-test, if I didn't accomodate a significant number of people's feelings on this matter. I would therefore not be fit to judge anyone's ability to think effectively.
Is this really because of the whiteboard though? Interviewing is a stressful thing to go through, and no process is going to be perfect for everyone. I agree that in general it can be harsh on candidates who are not glib and extrovertive, but this doesn't have much to do with the whiteboard.
Yes, I have no problem at all with a "traditional" job interview. Even ones where I've been given a paper exam and then left alone for a while have been okay. Though I also find that kind of interview to be rather distasteful, I've never actually had any problem doing well on the exam. Doing well on written exams (with solitude) is a skill that anyone who has graduated from a good school probably has already been forced to acquire.
then why did you say
> Fortunately when I interviewed at Google they let me use pencil and paper
There was the occasional exam with some coding, but the coding was typically rather easy (i.e., to demonstrate a CS concept that you would have been recently taught, and practiced on a problem set) and not time pressured. There was also certainly no one staring over my shoulder.
i don't think the top comment means literally a whiteboard. i think his argument is that if you can't program relatively basic things away from a computer, you don't really know how to program.
Someone standing behind you, looking over your shoulder, might be a bit intimidating at first, but if you have your reasoning figured out for yourself, there is no reason why you couldn't speak out your thoughts out loud and let others know the way how you came to a solution.
When you would ask me how I came to the answer, I wouldn't be able to tell you: I primed my brain and then eventually a lightbulb turned on.
But doesn't this just show that I'd never come up with a timely answer? Not at all. I took many tests as an MIT student in which I got A's and which I worked in precisely this manner. I didn't know how to solve a certain question, so I moved onto another question and then came back to the unsolved question. Often by the time I did, I just now knew the answer. On other problems, I'd do work and then cross it off and start over.
I could work this way because I didn't have someone staring over my goddamn shoulder asking me what I'm thinking every goddamn step of the way. If I have to explain myself constantly, I just get flustered when I realize that I said something completely stupid, and then I can't continue with my natural thought processes.
I cannot assert strongly enough, that the process that you claim that anyone smart should be good at, does not work for me.