Ask some smart business analysts with no coding experience to solve FizzBuzz in Excel. All should be able to do it. Instead of asserting this fact, put the hyp

Ask some smart business analysts with no coding experience to solve FizzBuzz in Excel. All should be able to do it. Instead of asserting this fact, put the hypothesis to the test. Ask some smart business analysts and see how many of them can solve fizz-buzz. You're much more likely to win over the audience if you have some data. Really though, I think this post is needlessly controversial. The whole text could have been, "It makes sense to hire people with no programming experience who can solve fizz-buzz." I don't know how many people fall into that category. I'm not sure how good they'd be or how long they'd take to get up to speed, but that's fine. It's something I can think about and engage with. The rest of the post is just arguing over definitions. If by "coding" you only mean "turning pseudocode into code", then yes a lot of things people call coding aren't coding. Likewise if by "think analytically" you mean "is able to solve fizz-buzz," then of course companies want programmers who can "think analytically." No matter what definitions you use, the hiring practices are the same. Fizz-buzz still acts as a negative filter. People who can't solve it aren't hired. People who can solve it may or may not be hired depending on how other things go.