I'm a developer who likes testing first, iterative processes, and refactoring, and I care about quality. I speak both C and Ruby with some facility, and enjoy both, which confuses some people.
(In the following, I use "external" to mean "interviews conducted by an agency that performs screening interviews on behalf of employers", and "internal" to mean "interviews conducted by the employers themselves, 'internally'". I think other terms I use should be pretty obvious, or at least I hope so, in context.)
Assuming no evaluation bias (a big assumption; we all have biases), I have a few wildly speculative ideas to offer for things to consider when trying to impose some kind of interpretation on these numbers:
Sublime is probably popular because it's free-or-cheap, and because it was the early free-or-cheap entrant in its specific editor-style market (including TextMate, Atom, and VS Code). Even on MacOS (TextMate territory) it's unsurprising, because many devs on MacOS are migrants from Linux-land.
Vim is probably popular in the interviews because it likely dominates among Linux users, and some migrants to MacOS carried that with them.
Atom users are probably mostly ex-Sublime users, and many of them seem to have trouble with it due to negative transference of knowledge (call it an "uncanny valley" effect, if you like) given the similarities with Sublime coupled with some differences that subtly trip up people used to Sublime.
Vim users are clearly well-suited to picking up skills involving systematic linguistic traits, given the fact the vi editing paradigm is basically a text processing language with a relatively simple grammar.
C++ is probably a very difficult language to use to perform the same kinds of tasks suitable to quick/easy completion in an interview environment. For exactly that same reason, if I was interviewing for a C programming job (because I'd rather have a C job than a C++ job), and was given the choice of any language at all to use in a skills evaluation for the job, I'd use Ruby. Once people who prefer C++ in the external skills interview actually manage to pass it, though, you've probably selected for the very best of them, so those candidates are probably much more likely to have a good chance of getting the job.
Ruby is a very productive language, and easily solves many problems more difficult in other languages, and it's thus possible that a lot of candidates do well in an initial skills test screen that are then judged not suitable to the job. A very smart bootcamper could lack the specific qualities to get past the internal interviews, for instance, even if that person excels in the external interview due to a solid grasp of the basic language and simple skills-test problem solving, while using a language that lends itself well to fast completion of tasks.
Emacs seems to be rapidly losing popularity for software devs overall, and I suspect that leaves those most "niche" in personal manner, preferences, and so on, which might put off interviewers at the target employer. They are also probably more GNU-favoring overall, given the pedigree of, and community around, Emacs.
Linux users are likely to be either fairly technically competent in a wide range of skill areas, or fairly overconfident in such skills, so you likely get a balance of the two resulting in a close-to-average overall success level for the group as a whole in the technical screen. Once they get there, those that are most skilled may also be the most "niche" in preferences, skill distribution, and so on, thus making them appear less desirable at the internal interview. This bodes well for me in terms of competence, or ill in terms of overconfidence, for a technical screening, but doubly ill for me at the internal interview stage; I actually prefer OpenBSD for my daily driver, and I have many eclectic technical skills (I like to explore interesting, quirky skill areas at times), most of which are more likely to make me less enticing to employers if they have any effect on the evaluation at all, thanks to the common human fear of weirdness.
I could be full of it. This is all just wild speculation, after all.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
(In the following, I use "external" to mean "interviews conducted by an agency that performs screening interviews on behalf of employers", and "internal" to mean "interviews conducted by the employers themselves, 'internally'". I think other terms I use should be pretty obvious, or at least I hope so, in context.)
Assuming no evaluation bias (a big assumption; we all have biases), I have a few wildly speculative ideas to offer for things to consider when trying to impose some kind of interpretation on these numbers:
Sublime is probably popular because it's free-or-cheap, and because it was the early free-or-cheap entrant in its specific editor-style market (including TextMate, Atom, and VS Code). Even on MacOS (TextMate territory) it's unsurprising, because many devs on MacOS are migrants from Linux-land.
Vim is probably popular in the interviews because it likely dominates among Linux users, and some migrants to MacOS carried that with them.
Atom users are probably mostly ex-Sublime users, and many of them seem to have trouble with it due to negative transference of knowledge (call it an "uncanny valley" effect, if you like) given the similarities with Sublime coupled with some differences that subtly trip up people used to Sublime.
Vim users are clearly well-suited to picking up skills involving systematic linguistic traits, given the fact the vi editing paradigm is basically a text processing language with a relatively simple grammar.
C++ is probably a very difficult language to use to perform the same kinds of tasks suitable to quick/easy completion in an interview environment. For exactly that same reason, if I was interviewing for a C programming job (because I'd rather have a C job than a C++ job), and was given the choice of any language at all to use in a skills evaluation for the job, I'd use Ruby. Once people who prefer C++ in the external skills interview actually manage to pass it, though, you've probably selected for the very best of them, so those candidates are probably much more likely to have a good chance of getting the job.
Ruby is a very productive language, and easily solves many problems more difficult in other languages, and it's thus possible that a lot of candidates do well in an initial skills test screen that are then judged not suitable to the job. A very smart bootcamper could lack the specific qualities to get past the internal interviews, for instance, even if that person excels in the external interview due to a solid grasp of the basic language and simple skills-test problem solving, while using a language that lends itself well to fast completion of tasks.
Emacs seems to be rapidly losing popularity for software devs overall, and I suspect that leaves those most "niche" in personal manner, preferences, and so on, which might put off interviewers at the target employer. They are also probably more GNU-favoring overall, given the pedigree of, and community around, Emacs.
Linux users are likely to be either fairly technically competent in a wide range of skill areas, or fairly overconfident in such skills, so you likely get a balance of the two resulting in a close-to-average overall success level for the group as a whole in the technical screen. Once they get there, those that are most skilled may also be the most "niche" in preferences, skill distribution, and so on, thus making them appear less desirable at the internal interview. This bodes well for me in terms of competence, or ill in terms of overconfidence, for a technical screening, but doubly ill for me at the internal interview stage; I actually prefer OpenBSD for my daily driver, and I have many eclectic technical skills (I like to explore interesting, quirky skill areas at times), most of which are more likely to make me less enticing to employers if they have any effect on the evaluation at all, thanks to the common human fear of weirdness.
I could be full of it. This is all just wild speculation, after all.