It's the worst method out there--except for all the other ones. The problem with the "here's my portfolio of work" screening method is that companies generally expect a certain level of productivity (and IQ), and there's no way to tell how long you worked on your portfolio. Did you write that code in two hours or two years? Any code can be made to look good given an infinite amount of time to polish it and test it. Behavioral interviewing questions, on the other hand, just don't work for coders; too easy to bullshit.

The arguments against coding interviews seem weak, to me. They appear to be rationalizations for not getting the job--an insult to the ego that must be rectified by bending reality. They essentially boil down to, "I shouldn't have to sweat these details; they're beneath me." But all of the greats sweat the small stuff, almost obsessively, and pay their dues.

For the vast majority of mindless coding jobs out there, you don't need to hit the high notes. But when you're moving the state of the art forward--indeed, civilization forward, inventing what has not been invented before--you need complete mastery. If you just want to build stuff, on the other hand, these skills are unnecessary. But that's not engineering. That's construction work, for construction workers.