There are several hills I would strongly consider dying on, but interview reform is not one of them.

Interviewing should normally have two results: the candidate was able to demonstrate the appropriate skills, or the candidate was not. Not being able to demonstrate the right skills in the interview does not mean that the candidate is a bad programmer or even a bad fit for the job. It just means that I was not able to verify their bona fides in that hour.

That's the difference between "that interview didn't go well" and "you are a bad programmer." One's a major blow to self confidence, and the other's a bummer. It's also a helpful mindset shift for both the interviewer and the interviewee: both of us are working together to achieve the goal of proving your capabilities. My job is to give you as many opportunities as possible to do so.

Apologies are due, sir. Two things happened. First, I hastily read through the question and rushed my response. Second, just a few minutes prior I finished a workout and was quite exasperated.

The use of the term "not judging" is a bit strange, without further context.

The word "judging" has multiple variant meanings. It is being used to mean two different things in this subthread.

Judging whether a candidate is coachable, their thought processes relevant to the job, understands the ideas etc is what the interview is for, you're right.

But "I'm not judging" doesn't refer to that. It refers instead to the concept in the word "judgemental". Some definitions of that are "having or displaying an overly critical point of view" and "thinking, speaking, or behaving in a manner that reflects a critical and condemnatory point of view".