[dnautics]

IMO You should really reconsider disabling execution and just tell the candidate that executable is not expected. Writing tests and executing them is an extremely important part of my programming flow, and when I am presented with a tool that I expect to be able to actively test with, if I am unable to do so... it's "fuck you Facebook"-level frustrating.

I guess it's yours hiring process, so whatever, but you could probably be filtering out people with very good and desirable programming habits.

I've also had some serious problems with (senior) coworkers who "assert their code works" when it's riddled with bugs or flat out doesn't work, so maybe it's my trauma refected here

> I hope I’m never asked to write executable code in it because as an editor, it’s terrible.

Well, I typically offer coderpad for anyone who would rather not share their screen.

[hamburglar]

> IMO You should really reconsider disabling execution

Not my call; it’s an org-wide setting (we use coderpad with SSO that lets the company control some of the settings).

If someone suggested using their own IDE and screen sharing instead, I would 100% let them do it.

[dnautics]

nice! Yeah, I much prefer using my own IDE over coderpad.