4 ms·

>> If they don't do it on their own, and don't seem interested in programming for their own benefit outside of the job, then don't hire them. I strongly disagr

>> If they don't do it on their own, and don't seem interested in programming for their own benefit outside of the job, then don't hire them. I strongly disagree with this. We as an industry desperately need to stop propagating these myths about what makes a good developer. You're enthusiasm for programming outside of work has jack all to do with your ability to perform the job functions expected of a SWE. Is it a sign if you are into programming as a pass time? Sure, but it's by no means an indicator of the quality of said programming. We don't expect lawyers to be litigating cases in their free time and we would never tell an accounting firm to pass up any candidate who doesn't demonstrably love doing their taxes. People work 8+ hours a day in these jobs and otherwise have lives. One could even argue that other interests is better for the long term prospects of candidate because they are less likely to burn out. 8 hours a day is more than enough time to build up domain expertise given the ~260 days you can expect to spend doing this each day

liquidise 9y ago
Let me qualify the parent comment with my own feelings, as i knew the moment i read their comment what your reply would say. Of the 30 or so engineers i have worked closely with over the last 6 years, nothing correlates better to the programmers ability than what i describe as "passion". I do not share the stance that this requires someone to spend time outside of work on personal projects or burning the midnight oil on work. Instead, what i look for is a burning desire to be creative and solve problems, specifically with code. I give candidates a number of opportunities to express why coding is important to them, and what would they be doing in its absence. If i had to only ask a single interview question, it would be something to that effect. While i don't mean to suggest every excellent programmer shares this passion, it has become the best single barometer i can find of gauging future ability. With midlevel and senior devs this task becomes a lot easier because you have so much experience to lean on. For juniors, passion is king.
- le-mark 9y ago
  I agree with the grandparent that relying on passion is toxic to our profession, almost exploitive. But as you say, it's a reliable indicator. Passionate juniors can be their own problem though, like monstrous object hierarchies for simple problems. But that's a separate issue.
rubyn00bie 9y ago
I strongly disagree with you and I'm guessing you don't have much experience hiring. You reference lawyers and doctors but they have already spent years in dedication of knowledge and experience. That's simply a bad comparison. This is about a junior developer not mid-level or senior. At some point as another comment says you have enough experience to not focus on it outside of work. In the beginning if you don't have passion and a desire to learn which your time at work won't be sufficient for, it's probably a good indicator you won't be a good engineer. Further your eight hours a day 260 days a year number is hogwash in the real world. No one gets eight hours of coding a day done unless they're prototyping in a cave isolated from the world. Communicating through pull requests, ticket systems, emails, slack, etc drive real productivity to somewhere between 3-6 hours a day depending on the company. So what it really means is you're talking 1.5x-2.25x the amount of time. That's assuming all learning is equal and the you're given tasks which linearly increase your knowledge (which is just nonsense). I for one would not want to hire someone who needs three or four years of work experience to overcome their "junior" title. I'm also in no way advocating they work more than 40 hour weeks or donate their time to the company. They need to be passionate enough to push their knowledge over a series of plateaus. A lot of people go to "code schools" now but lack passion. They want the pay thinking it'll be easy because of shitty and evil marketing campaigns that make false promises. That passion will prevent them from excelling at the work.

liquidise 9y ago

Let me qualify the parent comment with my own feelings, as i knew the moment i read their comment what your reply would say. Of the 30 or so engineers i have worked closely with over the last 6 years, nothing correlates better to the programmers ability than what i describe as "passion". I do not share the stance that this requires someone to spend time outside of work on personal projects or burning the midnight oil on work. Instead, what i look for is a burning desire to be creative and solve problems, specifically with code. I give candidates a number of opportunities to express why coding is important to them, and what would they be doing in its absence. If i had to only ask a single interview question, it would be something to that effect. While i don't mean to suggest every excellent programmer shares this passion, it has become the best single barometer i can find of gauging future ability. With midlevel and senior devs this task becomes a lot easier because you have so much experience to lean on. For juniors, passion is king.

le-mark 9y ago
I agree with the grandparent that relying on passion is toxic to our profession, almost exploitive. But as you say, it's a reliable indicator. Passionate juniors can be their own problem though, like monstrous object hierarchies for simple problems. But that's a separate issue.

rubyn00bie 9y ago

I strongly disagree with you and I'm guessing you don't have much experience hiring. You reference lawyers and doctors but they have already spent years in dedication of knowledge and experience. That's simply a bad comparison. This is about a junior developer not mid-level or senior. At some point as another comment says you have enough experience to not focus on it outside of work. In the beginning if you don't have passion and a desire to learn which your time at work won't be sufficient for, it's probably a good indicator you won't be a good engineer. Further your eight hours a day 260 days a year number is hogwash in the real world. No one gets eight hours of coding a day done unless they're prototyping in a cave isolated from the world. Communicating through pull requests, ticket systems, emails, slack, etc drive real productivity to somewhere between 3-6 hours a day depending on the company. So what it really means is you're talking 1.5x-2.25x the amount of time. That's assuming all learning is equal and the you're given tasks which linearly increase your knowledge (which is just nonsense). I for one would not want to hire someone who needs three or four years of work experience to overcome their "junior" title. I'm also in no way advocating they work more than 40 hour weeks or donate their time to the company. They need to be passionate enough to push their knowledge over a series of plateaus. A lot of people go to "code schools" now but lack passion. They want the pay thinking it'll be easy because of shitty and evil marketing campaigns that make false promises. That passion will prevent them from excelling at the work.