Here's a little example what happened to me:<p>I interviewed with a company. Naturally they asked for my side projects which I showed them. We talked about technical challenges, scaling, interesting bits of codes - all these kind of things. They were really excited. I passed the interviews and got the job.<p>Fast forward a couple month, still working on my side projects, some of which started generating a couple hundred bucks a month. My boss started asking me to stop any side projects and put all my time thinking about the company instead. I refused and said that I am 100% there during my work hours but what I do in my private time is not related and even the reason why I got this job in the first place. My boss didn't like that at all and even tried to figure the exact times out when I would work on private stuff to hold it against me. I eventually quit.<p>If your company wants to see side projects but dislikes the idea of you actually working on them after starting, you are doing something wrong.
I want to work in a group where they appreciate that I was basically born to code. That despite my youthful features, I have still been coding for over 30 years. That I can do many tasks in an hour, that other people would take days to do. That I will spend an extra 3 hours to put a cherry on top, just because I can. I may even do it on a Saturday, because code is what I like to do with my spare time too.<p>So when the last company I interviewed at asked me "what is the difference between range and xrange in Python?" I just kind of rolled my eyes (on the inside). To me this is like asking a professional translator "what is the difference between 'si' and 'sí' in Spanish?" They were not interested in the thousands of lines of code I have on GitHub for my side projects, nor in a recent project that got me 15 seconds of fame. I ended that interview by saying "I don't think I'm a good match for this job".<p>Different companies have different cultures. It's good to be able to identify the kind of culture you want to work in, and even better to be able to respectfully decline an opportunity because it doesn't work for you. Don't become bitter and think that all companies want you to be a coding robot, just because Google and Facebook do (or seem to; I'm not sure how many of my friends who work there actually have that many side projects either). There are plenty of jobs that will work for you that won't work for me, and vice versa.
I have worked at a prestigious tech company, and I know what OP is talking about.<p>A lot of very talented people don't have side projects, and they don't do any coding outside of work. They don't go to hackathons. They don't bother to learn the newest reactive javascript framework. They go to yoga classes after work. They talk about TV shows they watched last night during lunch.<p>But they EXCEL at what they do at work.<p>I can say that this is really a subjective thing. When you make a judgment about these people, it actually tells more about yourself than the person being judged.<p>When I saw these people who are super talented, but "waste away their lives" just climbing up the ladder I just couldn't sympathize. Also personally I like them but I would never think about starting a company with them.<p>That's why I understand where OP is coming from, and he's right in a lot of cases, but also I think he should understand that not everyone will agree with you on how you view your life. People like me can't stand not working on my own project, but there are also super talented people who are perfectly fine with living a balanced and stable life. Talent and intelligence has nothing to do with how you live your life.<p>So, I think no one should judge anyone else. The company who didn't hire this guy may have lost a talented person, but in many cases talent is not what companies need the most.<p>For large companies like Amazon (which OP seems to work at) this type of employee is the ideal choice since they get the talent AND stability.<p>But for startups, the concept of stability doesn't really make sense anyway so it's a different story. If I was doing a startup and had to pick the first employee, and was given a choice between a passionate, right out of the college guy, and an experienced and talented engineer who wants to live a balanced life, I would definitely choose the former. (Although the best case would be to find the third guy who's passionate AND talented)
When I started programming, I had side projects coming out of my ears. It was pure recreation.<p>After getting a "real" programming job, where I had to deal with design-by-committee, power struggles, keeping up appearances, etc. I didn't dare jump back into recreational programming--I'd never go back to my actual job.<p>Even now, working for myself, I have to be very disciplined when I crack open the "fun" code, because I know it will be very painful when it is time to go back to the code that pays the bills.
<p><pre><code> > For every one of those
> folks there are thousands
> of amazing, solid
> developers
</code></pre>
This does not match my experience.<p>Also, for every genuine genius in the world, there are a whole bunch of pretty average people who think they're really smart.
> When companies say they want "passionate developers" that are coding in their free time, when companies say they want "the best," I get nervous. It's a myopic approach to team building. It's a subtle way of requesting human machines.<p>I take issue with this.<p>I don't write code in my spare time for fun, I have a family.<p>When I do write it, and when I do Open Source it, it's because it makes my life easier. It makes it easier to check my email, track what I still need to do on the house, and cut out half my work tomorrow, so I can take some leave and be with my family.<p>I release it to the wild so that others might benefit, and I can pull it out when recruiters ask to see my code, even if they can't understand it, which is most of the time.
The entire drive to hire "passionate developers" makes me very nervous. It's a double edged sword and most people don't want to see it. Yes, passionate developers are more likely to stay up to date on technologies and are also more likely to put in extra time. However, they are also much more likely to use technology that isn't ready yet and overcomplicate things because of some misguided aesthetical sense or best case spend way too much time gold plating the wrong thing instead of providing business value. The cost of those things is generally much higher than someone going home sightly early or not knowing the very latest JS framework.<p>Edit: phone auto correct shenanigans
I've built a ton of side projects.<p>No one has ever shown anything more than a nodding interest in them, as they lead me to a whiteboard and ask me to regurgitate a couple of pages from Crack the Coding Interview.
As someone who <i>does</i> have a bunch of pet projects, I appreciate the author's sentiment. I often wonder whether my programming world presence (GitHub, HN, &c.) accurately reflects the kind of person I am (or perhaps want to be).
I agree with the author. You can't judge the passion of someone by his behaviour, that's silly. You can be as well a passionate programmer when you don't code home than when you do.<p>However, coding home has one - big - perk: it's almost the only way for you to code something from scratch. Alone. You and your code. You and your progress rate. You and your bugs. You and your choices. You and your mess. Nobody to smooth any angle.<p>I believe coding from scratch - alone - makes you a completely different kind of programmer indeed. But it has nothing to do with passion. Nothing at all.<p>I think (I can be wrong, still trying to validate that) that "number of projects from scratch" is <i>the</i> metric that tells the ultimate level of a programmer. In other words, if you've almost never coded anything from scratch (below say 40-50 projects), I do believe you are not very good at programming. Conversely, I know from experience (my own) that coding from scratch can make you so good, that you would find Amazon SDEs complete novices (I know from my own experience at amazon) and this before your 30's. It can make you better than principal engineers before your 30's. It can make you so good that TDD, OOP and agile development sounds like novice exercises to you. It can make you a programming master and beyond.<p>Could you be as good without coding from scratch really? Well, ultimately maybe but not as fast. Coding from scratch is so painful, so hard, so stressful, so frustrating that maintaining code or adding small to medium sized features is a baby step in comparison. Now of course, if you add something pretty big to an existing code base or make a god damn big refactor, you're doing the same thing as coding from scratch basically. The thing is that it's rare you 1) add that big a feature to an existing codebase 2) alone, in a big company.<p>I'm pretty sure the author has passion for programming, probably as big as anyone else. And balanced life is good for skills as feeling great makes you more creative amongst other thing. It's just that coding home makes you write a type of code that is 100 times more difficult than the one you do in big companies. Paradoxically, I'm pretty sure interviewers don't, at least consciously, know that.
Part of the process for me has been to try to do as much of my job as possible in the open source world.<p>Naturally, I can't open-source any private business code. But if I'm doing my job right, I'm building libraries and reusable code that isn't tightly coupled to business logic -- and there's no good reason to avoid throwing all of that on github, and have it be used by as many people as possible.<p>Of course there are going to be companies that aren't onboard with the idea of open-source. It's taken a lot of places a lot of time to get to that stage. But are those the places you really want to work?
I am generally suspicious of someone who has no sample code to show. You can't take a few hours a week for a month to put a small project together as a demo of your abilities?<p>Skip the novel writing for a month and instead create a 10 hour project that shows potential employers you know what you're talking about. You can use it for years so it's well worth the time investment.<p>For most jobs you don't have to have a ton of active side projects or contribute to open source. You should have <i>something</i> to demo though.
I'm not sure I like the tacit implication that folks who do lots of side projects are superior engineers or are very passionate about "coding".<p>The assumption that "lots of side projects" is somehow a positive attribute (from an employer's perspective with regard to "types" of engineers) is very much a flawed one.
I stopped reading when the author referred to the amount of people living in cities as "a tiny puddle" of the larger population. That's not even a little bit accurate.[1]<p>No, this is nothing more than pity-party because one person wants to fit in and be recognized for something they aren't. I am glad you think your dog business,and art, and running makes you equal to or better than someone who is passionate and dedicates themselves to their interests. You aren't that person. that's okay. but don't try and form the world to fit your views. You aren't the best developer, you don't want to be, move on.<p>[1]<a href="http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.h...</a>
I totally agree with this. If you can do the job well, who cares what you do in your free time.<p>I've been on the other side (the hiring side), so let me give my perspective. It's okay to not have side projects, or a presence on Github. It is perfectly okay to say "I don't have a very active Github account, but let me tell you what I enjoy about programming". "Show me your side projects" is a (poor) way of asking, "show me that you are passionate about your job". I'm not looking to hire the elite, but I <i>am</i> looking for someone who will be happy to come to work.
I always go through an extreme opposite hiring experience. I'm not on linkedin by choice. Currently I use my SO developer profile as my online resume. But the lack of a linkedin profile and associated connections makes it look like I'm not a professional in the view of certain employers. I have a decent bunch of side projects, and a moderately active github profile and I have gotten all my jobs including my current one based on that. I don't regret not being on linkedin. I'm just happy showing my side projects for my coding knowledge as I cannot show code I have worked as a part of my employment. Also I believe when talking about code written as a part of employement, it all boils down how effectively one communicates/talks to the potential employer than how actually we did it. This is one of the reasons I try to maintain side projects independent of my day job.<p>For me, the whole idea of proving oneself as professional by being on linkedin has been a biggest turn off. Coupled with this, when I look at some of the people's linkedin profile and the actual attitude and proficiency they demonstrate in their jobs makes linkedin look like a ridiculous circus.
Once I was not accepted for a job because I had very good side projects. They said I was a risk to them, because I could stole ideas, contracts or be a competitor. Today I have my own business, if we compete, it's just in hiring talent.
Just go work somewhere else. Luckily for many of us, demand has been outpacing supply for years.<p>If the market was worse, then it wouldn't seem so strange. Lots of other professions require a portfolio of work.
I am passionate about code. But, most of my github is little hacks to solve some particular need or scratch some particular itch, without any need for overarching design or maintainability.<p>The good stuff (including libraries and frameworks) is all in my professional career.
I feel like if you use open source libraries and are a decent developer you'll naturally end up submitting a PR to Github at some point. I find bugs in almost every open source library I use and have had so many PRs to fix them.
I notice the article is from LinkedIn Pulse.<p>I dislike Pulse because it's mandatory content on "my" LinkedIn page, which I find a bit obnoxious.<p>So I avoid visiting Pulse stories in order to discourage that entire aspect of the site.
> I've made it a point to add to my resume and online profiles the other things about which I am passionate. The silly art project that I launched in Austin. My dog business. Running, painting, writing. It's important to me that these attributes be valued by my workplace<p>Good luck mate, that's got nothing to do with software development. If you don't love software development then applying for a software job at a software firm probably isn't the best idea. Many small buisnesses need software people who are pasionate about other things. Many of these things include "Running, painting, writing" but a software shop writning software owned by people in the software industry populated entierly by people who absolutly love writing software probably isn't the place for that.
I actually don't mind being a human machine. Not that I've had the chance yet. I'm still in college to get my CS degree and would fall into one of those people where "coding is a Craft". I genuinely love programming. I don't have a family, or really desire one. My weekend plans always consist of building another project of my own. A place that will let me code all day, give me a nap room, a shower, some salary, and food sounds like a dream. It's unfortunate that it costs so much money to get to the cities that promote this.<p>I think the author is just realizing that this field isn't for them. Tech moves fast and to stay on top of it you have to move fast too. At least for modern tech. Maybe that author would be more comfortable being a COBOL programmer, or an embedded systems one.