7 ms·

Programming Outside of Business Hours

39 points by tomh 16y ago

wccrawford 16y ago
For the first 3 years that I was a professional programmer, I didn't code at all at home. Previously, I had coded as a hobby and it was my skills from that that I was hired on. But suddenly going from 2 hours of programming a day to 8 was too much. Around the 3 year mark, something changed. I suddenly wasn't doing enough programming at work and started playing around at home. Now recently (the 5 year mark is quickly approaching) I have started to hunger for it even more, and have started watching less TV and playing fewer video games in favor of doing more fun coding at home and researching new ideas/languages/etc. I think if the developer has years of experience and doesn't code at home, he doesn't have the fever needed to become better on his own time. While I don't think that should immediately disqualify someone, I think it should be part of the hiring decision.
heretoo 16y ago
This is a wake up call for me. Too little networking..
pendragon 16y ago
Very interesting that someone really uses his social network like that. I like to keep up with professionals via their blogs and twitter. As a student (final year) I find it helps me learn what's happening in the tech world from a better (for me) perspective than a purely news oriented site. I usually learn something which helps.
RobIsIT 16y ago
In my mind, programming outside of business hours is a part of ongoing education. Often, you learn a lot programming on your own time even if it is related to a work project. Extending a new function or exploring how something could work better with a new technique after 5pm is one of the easiest and best ways to pepper in some regular education. Sometimes however, a programmer who isn't deeply interested in technology can be a valuable addition to the team. If you have a lot of code that needs to be transitioned, complicated logs that need imported, regular "do this, then" work or other labor that a deeply motivated programmer would find tedious, a different style of programmer may find this work comfortable and easy.
- ganley 16y ago
  For some of us, our job fulfills our passion just fine, and affords plenty of opportunity for ongoing education. I've always thought that many (not all, but many) people program for fun because their job isn't sufficiently interesting.
jacquesm 16y ago
What people do outside of 'business hours' really is no business of their employer. The angle is 'I would not interview them', not 'I would not hire them'. The difference is subtle, but the title suggests that it is the one whereas actually it is the other. Think about it, if you actually did what the title says then you'd be open to legal action almost immediately. Imagine an employer that would not hire a bookkeeper because they're not busy with bookkeeping in their free time. I understand what the author is trying to say but the title is not really appropriate, the author has filtered out such applicants before the interview phase, so he does not hire them as a consequence of that.
- goodside 16y ago
  The only thing silly about the bookkeeping example is that people who enjoy bookkeeping are rare, and a manager with that policy would have trouble finding anyone for the job. If I were hiring a bookkeeper, and I actually did find someone who enjoys bookkeeping in their free time (say, for a local chess club or a non-profit charity) I would consider that a plus. If nine out of ten resumes came from people who do free-time bookkeeping, I would be inclined to hire one of them over the one-in-ten minority that doesn't. If this is illegal, the law is wrong.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    As an employer you pay your employees for their time. What they do outside of that time is completely up to them and literally no business of the employer. So whether someone goes skydiving in their spare time or collects stamps or works on their hobby projects in the same field as their profession should have no bearing on their employment, or on their hiring. The law is in my opinion totally just and I'm saying that as a former employer.
    - detst 16y ago
      > What they do outside of that time is completely up to them I completely agree but I think the argument is that, all things being equal, someone that will do things related to their job in their free time will be better at the job and more likely to get better and better. I can certainly see why someone would want to use it as a hiring factor but, like you said, once employed, it's none of their business.
PastorOfMuppets 16y ago
Thats nice. I wouldn't want to work with someone who did nothing but program, use computers, 24/7. There is this thing called life, I hear its pretty interesting.
- lsc 16y ago
  oh god, are you that guy who can't shut up about the football game last weekend? do you know how hard it is to keep smiling when you accost me every Monday morning with the news about your team? At least let me finish my coffee first. (I'm mostly joking... but there really is a pretty big cultural divide here between people for whom this is a job and people for whom this is their identity.)
  - ganley 16y ago
    You nailed it with that last sentence, and the OP would seem to be looking for the latter class of people. What troubles me is the constant either-or mudslinging between the job people who think the identity people have no lives, and the identity people who think the job people are nothing but seat-warmers. As with all such false dichotomies, the truth is a long spectrum between the two, and using a single, simple measure such as whether the person programs for fun to measure passion is heuristic at best.
    - raganwald 16y ago
      Resolution: All measures of job fitness applied during the selection process are heuristics at best, and cargo cult practices at worst. Discuss.
  - raghava 16y ago
    >>a pretty big cultural divide here between people for whom this is a job and people for whom this is their identity Precisely. :) Still, as ganley points out, "truth is a long spectrum between the two". Simply put, question is whether the candidate is passionate about programming and software systems (and if so, is he competent enough ;)) or not. For few it is their identity, and for many, it is just a job. Even those who loathe(or do not care a damn about) programming/software/computers/technology could be given fancy designations and be employed in IT, thanks to that thriving segment in the industry (yeah, the one that provides 'cost-effective means to get anything done based on a checklist'). Real fun (read 'misery') is when there is a misfit around; i.e. like when there's a guy totally passionate about programming/computers with a bunch of 'I-won't-even-touch-computer-outside-work' types who abhor programming. /* yeah, the latter ones are for real. :) */
seshagiric 16y ago
So basically if a good programmer is spending his time with family and kids or doing something other than programming in his non-work time, then you will not hire him? Programming outside business hours is great way to learn new skills and try out things that will never come as part of your day job. For example, my day job would never include any mobile app development. So I do it as a side project. In fact lot of people have developed lot of cool projects this way (outside work). However saying this is the only way to tell a programmer is good is taking it too far. Like Jacquesm mentions people might have other interesting things to do or on the other hand people can suck equally bad in their 'other' projects too :)
- raganwald 16y ago
  I absolutely agree that saying this is the only way to tell a good programmer is taking it too far. And in fact, the post does not say this is the only way to tell a good programmer. So have an upvote, we agree.
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  "So basically if a good programmer is spending his time with family and kids or doing something other than programming in his non-work time, then you will not hire him?" That person would in many cases be the better choice, too -- especially if you want your product to actually work, and not be a maintenance nightmare. People like hate getting paged at 2am due to production bugs, so they tend to have stronger motivation to write simpler, cleaner code than the passionate tinkerers tend to write and become emotionally attached to.
- jim_dot 16y ago
  Programmers are not people. They are robots without friends or families and they really hate being paid overtime.
sgift 16y ago
As an employer I would want good (or "great", but I prefer the term good) programmers. I don't really care why they are good. Maybe they are good because they program 24/7 - okay. Maybe they do not use a computer outside of the office, but are still good programmers - okay. Really, why should I care? This all sounds more like "I want people who are like me" than "I want good programmers as employees".
BSousa 16y ago
This has been discussed in many places but ok, here goes my take. I hardly, ever, ever program at home unless it is something I can make money of. I like programming as much as the next guy, but between my family and my hobbies (which are many), I see programming for 9-5. Working 8 hours a day and being good at it doesn't qualify as passionate? What do you want? 10? 16? 22 hours a day? You want people that are passionate and want to learn? Give them chances to do so while on the job. Let them use Ruby on Rails, or Erlang on the next project. Don't expect them to do it at home for free so you them reap the rewards. If you don't want to hire me, fine, heck you can even not hiring me because I'm bald and you don't like bald people, but this "Has to program at home/Has to contribute to Open Source" crap is nothing more than that, crap!
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  This is one of the problems with the Silicon Valley echo-chamber effect. Everyone things that they deserve (must!) hire the "rockstars" who hack 24/7. I'd rather hire someone who doesn't spend all of their spare time programming because they're going to be more rested and fresh when it comes to their work programming. Spending time with family, outdoor activities, cultural events, hell even reading and not being in front of a computer are all vital to the brain.
  - Tamerlin 16y ago
    I'd actually go a step farther and FIRE anyone who regularly works a lot of overtime -- for exactly the same reason. As far as I'm concerned, sillycone valley can have the rockstars. It will keep them out of my hair so that I can get things done.
jtbigwoo 16y ago
Any employer worth working for has learning and development programs. At big companies, there's probably dozens of people managing training programs. At small companies, there are tons of opportunities to organize interest groups or show and tell. I know firms with lots of licensed employees (accounting, insurance, and education come to mind) generally have no problem granting their employees time to keep current on their continuing education. So what's the problem with technology? Why can't we act as humanely as other professions?
- lsc 16y ago
  /every/ company I've worked for buys it's technical people books. Hell, I do that for my contractors. And most larger places have tuition assistance if you want to take actual classes.
- matwood 16y ago
  My company paid for my grad school and let me build my work schedule around classes and big assignments.
j-g-faustus 16y ago
I met someone who finished business school and applied for lots of jobs in the financial sector, but was rather frustrated after six months and several interviews but no job offer. (This was before the financial crisis.) She complained that the interviewers were asking stupid and irrelevant questions, along the lines of "what is the current stock price for company X?" When she told them she had been away on vacation in France they asked her to describe the French stock market instead. (She: "How am I supposed to know, I was on holiday!") Programming is apparently not the only field where "interest beyond 9-5" is a job requirement... Or more precisely: There are plenty of jobs in both programming and finance where 9-5 interest is enough, but in my experience the jobs that are considered "good" tend to ask more than that.
- mey 16y ago
  Companies are always looking at ways to reduce costs. Some recognize that one employee performance varies greatly from the next employee. Asking these questions tends to indicate a different caliber of employee, one that is devoted to their field in obsessive ways. If that in the end defines a better employee I don't really know, but I tend to disagree. I personally (in the programming field) look for people who have the right ego (humble) and personality (outgoing). If you can do those two things, have a baseline of knowledge, and can LEARN then you'll make a great employee. (Maybe not a great entrepreneur?) (Also no the company I work for is not currently hiring)
  - timwiseman 16y ago
    right ego (humble) and personality (outgoing). I guess it sort of depends on how you define humble, but I find that most good programmers have at least a touch of arrogance. They must approach some of the most complicated machines developped in all of history and say, "I will make this do my will." They must approach problems that have not been solved before and say, "I can solve this." If you decide to change languages or even just frameworks or a new API, they must think, "I can and will learn this." I can see a desire for a certain degree of humility, but it must be of a specific kind, not what most people think of as humility. It should be of the "I know there are people better than me, but I will find them and learn from them. I will always strive to be the best, while acknowledging there will be others better."
ojbyrne 16y ago
Isn't it possible their job is more than just 9-5? At a startup, it often consumes most of your free time.
ojbyrne 16y ago
I have actually heard the opposite during hiring. Basically because of the "no assholes" rule. If someone doesn't have interests other than work/programming, there's a good chance they fail that test.
riffraff 16y ago
am I the only one bothered by the second formula? ¬(¬MY_PEEPS ⇒ ¬SKILLZ) ∧ ¬(¬SKILLZ ⇒ ¬SOFTWARE) at first sight it could be quite more simple as ¬(SKILLZ ⇒ MY_PEEPS ∨ SOFTWARE ⇒ SKILLZ) (contrapposition, de morgan)
- raganwald 16y ago
  Hmm, I think you're right!
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
klochner 16y ago
"we can all agree that . . . ???" ¬(¬MY_PEEPS ⇒ ¬SKILLZ) ∧ ¬(¬SKILLZ ⇒ ¬SOFTWARE) # original formula ¬(SKILLZ ⇒ MY_PEEPS ∨ SOFTWARE ⇒ SKILLZ) # De Morgan ¬(¬SKILLZ ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE ∨ SKILLZ) # (a⇒b) ↔ (¬a∨b) ¬(¬SKILLZ ∨ SKILLZ ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE) # re-arranging ¬(TRUE ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE) # (¬a∨a) ↔ TRUE FALSE # ¬TRUE ↔ FALSE
- raganwald 16y ago
  No, I don't agree. Maybe you should explain each step so that I can follow along. I am probably not as smart as you are. Update: I think you are being a bit literal. The two SKILLZ aren't the same proposition. The first is the proposition that a particular person has some characteristics I value. the second is the proposition that a particular team has some characteristics I value. So if you want to get really serious, you might call the first one SKILLZ-sub-candidate and the second SKILLS-sub-team. Thinking this through was valuable, thank you and have an upmod.
  - klochner 16y ago
    formal logic isn't something you're supposed to get "hand-wavey" with, especially if you're trying to show off your geek-cred. and I found it happily ironic that he preceded the statement with "i think we can all agree"
    - raganwald 16y ago
      First, perhaps you don't know this, but: "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." Next, how about I write my words and you write yours, and furthermore I write mine for my reasons, and you write yours for your reasons? Because if what happened was that you understood what I was saying and you agreed with it, then I suggest to you that it worked JUST FINE, geek points be damned.
      - klochner 16y ago
SHOwnsYou 16y ago
I want to say something that will no doubt be wildly unpopular. What are the chances that the author uses programming as a method of escape? The reason I say this -- he discusses his social anxiety at the bottom. Makes me think instead of interacting with new and random people, he would rather be in his own thoughts (either because it is less painful or there simply isn't an interest in new people). Many people, even several that I work with, do not program much outside of the job. I would virtually always rather be out at an event or by the pool or doing just about -anything- other than be on my computer after my work day is finished. Important stuff comes through my phone and I'll address it if necessary, but I am not dying to get right back on the computer when I get home. I should note however, that my job is transitioning out of developer and into a more outwardly facing role. I've been developing for several years and I've just grown tired of it. I get to solve new problems now.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Chances are good, especially when I was an adolescent. However, like many things it's way more complicated than that. I enjoy meeting new people. If you say, "Reg, let's go for a coffee, I want you to meet someone," I will probably leap at the chance. If you say, "Reg, there's an iPad programming Flash Mob going on downstairs," I might break out in hives. or go bouldering where I meet plenty of people and have rich experiences with them. It's a very good and refreshing supposition, thanks!
  - SHOwnsYou 16y ago
    Let me start by saying I am very happy that you responded to me. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I feel like there is very much an industry standard personality-wise (that I think you are more similar to). I don't think I am anything like the industry standard - I am headstrong with an ego rivaled by few. I don't think I am better or worse suited for what we do, but I am noting the difference. My ultimate point is that I gain a lot of insight when other people, who I know are different personality wise, give me their thoughts on how they would/do run a business. A lot of people in my family run successful businesses and I have access to who/what personalities they hire, but the line of work my family is in is not technology-heavy at all. I am inclined to think my dad is more likely to hire people that don't put a large amount of their personal time into their work, simply because he runs a very customer oriented business. Being able to relate to and engage people is very important. Diversified interests help a lot in being able to do this. So like I said, I approach it differently (maybe it's learned from my parents and relatives), but I appreciate you responding to me very much. It helps me to figure out what makes you tick.
blahblahblah 16y ago
The idea that if you don't program outside of work you're not a good programmer is just silly. I can understand that you might regard with some suspicion the abilities of someone who has never in their entire life written code outside of work. But, the idea that you must always continue to do so even when you have a day job programming is utter nonsense. Programming isn't my weekend hobby anymore. Why should it be? I get to do it every day at work and get paid for it now. That was the point of making it my career. It was something I already enjoyed doing and was good at that I could also make a living by doing. Am I automatically less passionate about it because I'm doing it for profit now? Of course not. I use my free time to do all of the other things that I enjoy doing. It's ok to have more than one passion. It won't harm your programming ability for you to program during the day and paint or write music in your spare time. On the contrary, you are more likely to show up for work each day refreshed and enthused about what you are doing precisely because you are doing other satisfying things after work.
- raganwald 16y ago
  edit: http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz
  - blahblahblah 16y ago
    "Given any mechanism for filtering people, I claim that there are smart, productive people who will be filtered out. These are called false negatives. It is impossible to create a repeatable hiring process that does away with false negatives." While it is true that no test can avoid false negatives, it is also true that if the quantity measured by your test is uncorrelated with the phenomenon of interest then your test is neither sensitive nor specific and its PPV and NPV will be poor no matter where you set your decision threshold on the ROC curve. If you advocate such a test publicly, you should expect to be criticized for doing so. "I now understand that he was using a strategy for hiring people, not a metric for measuring me. His strategy for hiring people worked for his purposes. Why take that personally?" You could decide which programmer to hire based on skin color and write a blog advocating that "strategy" as well. (You'd get sued for doing so, but that's tangential to the point here.) If you did that, it would be unreasonable to expect the "it's just my strategy; it isn't about you, so don't take it personally" argument to be taken seriously. Whether you are aware of it or not, when you advocate a hiring practice publicly you are making an implicit claim that it has some validity and the community is right to spew vitriol in your direction if your hiring criteria are not well constrained within the realm of demonstrable merit and cross over into areas that are none of your damn business as an employer.

39 points by tomh 16y ago

For the first 3 years that I was a professional programmer, I didn't code at all at home. Previously, I had coded as a hobby and it was my skills from that that I was hired on. But suddenly going from 2 hours of programming a day to 8 was too much. Around the 3 year mark, something changed. I suddenly wasn't doing enough programming at work and started playing around at home. Now recently (the 5 year mark is quickly approaching) I have started to hunger for it even more, and have started watching less TV and playing fewer video games in favor of doing more fun coding at home and researching new ideas/languages/etc. I think if the developer has years of experience and doesn't code at home, he doesn't have the fever needed to become better on his own time. While I don't think that should immediately disqualify someone, I think it should be part of the hiring decision.

heretoo 16y ago

This is a wake up call for me. Too little networking..

pendragon 16y ago

Very interesting that someone really uses his social network like that. I like to keep up with professionals via their blogs and twitter. As a student (final year) I find it helps me learn what's happening in the tech world from a better (for me) perspective than a purely news oriented site. I usually learn something which helps.

RobIsIT 16y ago

In my mind, programming outside of business hours is a part of ongoing education. Often, you learn a lot programming on your own time even if it is related to a work project. Extending a new function or exploring how something could work better with a new technique after 5pm is one of the easiest and best ways to pepper in some regular education. Sometimes however, a programmer who isn't deeply interested in technology can be a valuable addition to the team. If you have a lot of code that needs to be transitioned, complicated logs that need imported, regular "do this, then" work or other labor that a deeply motivated programmer would find tedious, a different style of programmer may find this work comfortable and easy.

ganley 16y ago
For some of us, our job fulfills our passion just fine, and affords plenty of opportunity for ongoing education. I've always thought that many (not all, but many) people program for fun because their job isn't sufficiently interesting.

jacquesm 16y ago

What people do outside of 'business hours' really is no business of their employer. The angle is 'I would not interview them', not 'I would not hire them'. The difference is subtle, but the title suggests that it is the one whereas actually it is the other. Think about it, if you actually did what the title says then you'd be open to legal action almost immediately. Imagine an employer that would not hire a bookkeeper because they're not busy with bookkeeping in their free time. I understand what the author is trying to say but the title is not really appropriate, the author has filtered out such applicants before the interview phase, so he does not hire them as a consequence of that.

goodside 16y ago
The only thing silly about the bookkeeping example is that people who enjoy bookkeeping are rare, and a manager with that policy would have trouble finding anyone for the job. If I were hiring a bookkeeper, and I actually did find someone who enjoys bookkeeping in their free time (say, for a local chess club or a non-profit charity) I would consider that a plus. If nine out of ten resumes came from people who do free-time bookkeeping, I would be inclined to hire one of them over the one-in-ten minority that doesn't. If this is illegal, the law is wrong.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  As an employer you pay your employees for their time. What they do outside of that time is completely up to them and literally no business of the employer. So whether someone goes skydiving in their spare time or collects stamps or works on their hobby projects in the same field as their profession should have no bearing on their employment, or on their hiring. The law is in my opinion totally just and I'm saying that as a former employer.
  - detst 16y ago
    > What they do outside of that time is completely up to them I completely agree but I think the argument is that, all things being equal, someone that will do things related to their job in their free time will be better at the job and more likely to get better and better. I can certainly see why someone would want to use it as a hiring factor but, like you said, once employed, it's none of their business.

PastorOfMuppets 16y ago

Thats nice. I wouldn't want to work with someone who did nothing but program, use computers, 24/7. There is this thing called life, I hear its pretty interesting.

lsc 16y ago
oh god, are you that guy who can't shut up about the football game last weekend? do you know how hard it is to keep smiling when you accost me every Monday morning with the news about your team? At least let me finish my coffee first. (I'm mostly joking... but there really is a pretty big cultural divide here between people for whom this is a job and people for whom this is their identity.)
- ganley 16y ago
  You nailed it with that last sentence, and the OP would seem to be looking for the latter class of people. What troubles me is the constant either-or mudslinging between the job people who think the identity people have no lives, and the identity people who think the job people are nothing but seat-warmers. As with all such false dichotomies, the truth is a long spectrum between the two, and using a single, simple measure such as whether the person programs for fun to measure passion is heuristic at best.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Resolution: All measures of job fitness applied during the selection process are heuristics at best, and cargo cult practices at worst. Discuss.
- raghava 16y ago
  >>a pretty big cultural divide here between people for whom this is a job and people for whom this is their identity Precisely. :) Still, as ganley points out, "truth is a long spectrum between the two". Simply put, question is whether the candidate is passionate about programming and software systems (and if so, is he competent enough ;)) or not. For few it is their identity, and for many, it is just a job. Even those who loathe(or do not care a damn about) programming/software/computers/technology could be given fancy designations and be employed in IT, thanks to that thriving segment in the industry (yeah, the one that provides 'cost-effective means to get anything done based on a checklist'). Real fun (read 'misery') is when there is a misfit around; i.e. like when there's a guy totally passionate about programming/computers with a bunch of 'I-won't-even-touch-computer-outside-work' types who abhor programming. /* yeah, the latter ones are for real. :) */

seshagiric 16y ago

So basically if a good programmer is spending his time with family and kids or doing something other than programming in his non-work time, then you will not hire him? Programming outside business hours is great way to learn new skills and try out things that will never come as part of your day job. For example, my day job would never include any mobile app development. So I do it as a side project. In fact lot of people have developed lot of cool projects this way (outside work). However saying this is the only way to tell a programmer is good is taking it too far. Like Jacquesm mentions people might have other interesting things to do or on the other hand people can suck equally bad in their 'other' projects too :)

raganwald 16y ago
I absolutely agree that saying this is the only way to tell a good programmer is taking it too far. And in fact, the post does not say this is the only way to tell a good programmer. So have an upvote, we agree.
Tamerlin 16y ago
"So basically if a good programmer is spending his time with family and kids or doing something other than programming in his non-work time, then you will not hire him?" That person would in many cases be the better choice, too -- especially if you want your product to actually work, and not be a maintenance nightmare. People like hate getting paged at 2am due to production bugs, so they tend to have stronger motivation to write simpler, cleaner code than the passionate tinkerers tend to write and become emotionally attached to.
jim_dot 16y ago
Programmers are not people. They are robots without friends or families and they really hate being paid overtime.

sgift 16y ago

As an employer I would want good (or "great", but I prefer the term good) programmers. I don't really care why they are good. Maybe they are good because they program 24/7 - okay. Maybe they do not use a computer outside of the office, but are still good programmers - okay. Really, why should I care? This all sounds more like "I want people who are like me" than "I want good programmers as employees".

BSousa 16y ago

This has been discussed in many places but ok, here goes my take. I hardly, ever, ever program at home unless it is something I can make money of. I like programming as much as the next guy, but between my family and my hobbies (which are many), I see programming for 9-5. Working 8 hours a day and being good at it doesn't qualify as passionate? What do you want? 10? 16? 22 hours a day? You want people that are passionate and want to learn? Give them chances to do so while on the job. Let them use Ruby on Rails, or Erlang on the next project. Don't expect them to do it at home for free so you them reap the rewards. If you don't want to hire me, fine, heck you can even not hiring me because I'm bald and you don't like bald people, but this "Has to program at home/Has to contribute to Open Source" crap is nothing more than that, crap!

maukdaddy 16y ago
This is one of the problems with the Silicon Valley echo-chamber effect. Everyone things that they deserve (must!) hire the "rockstars" who hack 24/7. I'd rather hire someone who doesn't spend all of their spare time programming because they're going to be more rested and fresh when it comes to their work programming. Spending time with family, outdoor activities, cultural events, hell even reading and not being in front of a computer are all vital to the brain.
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  I'd actually go a step farther and FIRE anyone who regularly works a lot of overtime -- for exactly the same reason. As far as I'm concerned, sillycone valley can have the rockstars. It will keep them out of my hair so that I can get things done.

jtbigwoo 16y ago

Any employer worth working for has learning and development programs. At big companies, there's probably dozens of people managing training programs. At small companies, there are tons of opportunities to organize interest groups or show and tell. I know firms with lots of licensed employees (accounting, insurance, and education come to mind) generally have no problem granting their employees time to keep current on their continuing education. So what's the problem with technology? Why can't we act as humanely as other professions?

lsc 16y ago
/every/ company I've worked for buys it's technical people books. Hell, I do that for my contractors. And most larger places have tuition assistance if you want to take actual classes.
matwood 16y ago
My company paid for my grad school and let me build my work schedule around classes and big assignments.

j-g-faustus 16y ago

I met someone who finished business school and applied for lots of jobs in the financial sector, but was rather frustrated after six months and several interviews but no job offer. (This was before the financial crisis.) She complained that the interviewers were asking stupid and irrelevant questions, along the lines of "what is the current stock price for company X?" When she told them she had been away on vacation in France they asked her to describe the French stock market instead. (She: "How am I supposed to know, I was on holiday!") Programming is apparently not the only field where "interest beyond 9-5" is a job requirement... Or more precisely: There are plenty of jobs in both programming and finance where 9-5 interest is enough, but in my experience the jobs that are considered "good" tend to ask more than that.

mey 16y ago
Companies are always looking at ways to reduce costs. Some recognize that one employee performance varies greatly from the next employee. Asking these questions tends to indicate a different caliber of employee, one that is devoted to their field in obsessive ways. If that in the end defines a better employee I don't really know, but I tend to disagree. I personally (in the programming field) look for people who have the right ego (humble) and personality (outgoing). If you can do those two things, have a baseline of knowledge, and can LEARN then you'll make a great employee. (Maybe not a great entrepreneur?) (Also no the company I work for is not currently hiring)
- timwiseman 16y ago
  right ego (humble) and personality (outgoing). I guess it sort of depends on how you define humble, but I find that most good programmers have at least a touch of arrogance. They must approach some of the most complicated machines developped in all of history and say, "I will make this do my will." They must approach problems that have not been solved before and say, "I can solve this." If you decide to change languages or even just frameworks or a new API, they must think, "I can and will learn this." I can see a desire for a certain degree of humility, but it must be of a specific kind, not what most people think of as humility. It should be of the "I know there are people better than me, but I will find them and learn from them. I will always strive to be the best, while acknowledging there will be others better."

ojbyrne 16y ago

Isn't it possible their job is more than just 9-5? At a startup, it often consumes most of your free time.

ojbyrne 16y ago

I have actually heard the opposite during hiring. Basically because of the "no assholes" rule. If someone doesn't have interests other than work/programming, there's a good chance they fail that test.

riffraff 16y ago

am I the only one bothered by the second formula? ¬(¬MY_PEEPS ⇒ ¬SKILLZ) ∧ ¬(¬SKILLZ ⇒ ¬SOFTWARE) at first sight it could be quite more simple as ¬(SKILLZ ⇒ MY_PEEPS ∨ SOFTWARE ⇒ SKILLZ) (contrapposition, de morgan)

raganwald 16y ago
Hmm, I think you're right!
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

klochner 16y ago

"we can all agree that . . . ???" ¬(¬MY_PEEPS ⇒ ¬SKILLZ) ∧ ¬(¬SKILLZ ⇒ ¬SOFTWARE) # original formula ¬(SKILLZ ⇒ MY_PEEPS ∨ SOFTWARE ⇒ SKILLZ) # De Morgan ¬(¬SKILLZ ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE ∨ SKILLZ) # (a⇒b) ↔ (¬a∨b) ¬(¬SKILLZ ∨ SKILLZ ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE) # re-arranging ¬(TRUE ∨ MY_PEEPS ∨ ¬SOFTWARE) # (¬a∨a) ↔ TRUE FALSE # ¬TRUE ↔ FALSE

raganwald 16y ago
No, I don't agree. Maybe you should explain each step so that I can follow along. I am probably not as smart as you are. Update: I think you are being a bit literal. The two SKILLZ aren't the same proposition. The first is the proposition that a particular person has some characteristics I value. the second is the proposition that a particular team has some characteristics I value. So if you want to get really serious, you might call the first one SKILLZ-sub-candidate and the second SKILLS-sub-team. Thinking this through was valuable, thank you and have an upmod.
- klochner 16y ago
  formal logic isn't something you're supposed to get "hand-wavey" with, especially if you're trying to show off your geek-cred. and I found it happily ironic that he preceded the statement with "i think we can all agree"
  - raganwald 16y ago
    First, perhaps you don't know this, but: "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." Next, how about I write my words and you write yours, and furthermore I write mine for my reasons, and you write yours for your reasons? Because if what happened was that you understood what I was saying and you agreed with it, then I suggest to you that it worked JUST FINE, geek points be damned.
    - klochner 16y ago

SHOwnsYou 16y ago

I want to say something that will no doubt be wildly unpopular. What are the chances that the author uses programming as a method of escape? The reason I say this -- he discusses his social anxiety at the bottom. Makes me think instead of interacting with new and random people, he would rather be in his own thoughts (either because it is less painful or there simply isn't an interest in new people). Many people, even several that I work with, do not program much outside of the job. I would virtually always rather be out at an event or by the pool or doing just about -anything- other than be on my computer after my work day is finished. Important stuff comes through my phone and I'll address it if necessary, but I am not dying to get right back on the computer when I get home. I should note however, that my job is transitioning out of developer and into a more outwardly facing role. I've been developing for several years and I've just grown tired of it. I get to solve new problems now.

raganwald 16y ago
Chances are good, especially when I was an adolescent. However, like many things it's way more complicated than that. I enjoy meeting new people. If you say, "Reg, let's go for a coffee, I want you to meet someone," I will probably leap at the chance. If you say, "Reg, there's an iPad programming Flash Mob going on downstairs," I might break out in hives. or go bouldering where I meet plenty of people and have rich experiences with them. It's a very good and refreshing supposition, thanks!
- SHOwnsYou 16y ago
  Let me start by saying I am very happy that you responded to me. I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I feel like there is very much an industry standard personality-wise (that I think you are more similar to). I don't think I am anything like the industry standard - I am headstrong with an ego rivaled by few. I don't think I am better or worse suited for what we do, but I am noting the difference. My ultimate point is that I gain a lot of insight when other people, who I know are different personality wise, give me their thoughts on how they would/do run a business. A lot of people in my family run successful businesses and I have access to who/what personalities they hire, but the line of work my family is in is not technology-heavy at all. I am inclined to think my dad is more likely to hire people that don't put a large amount of their personal time into their work, simply because he runs a very customer oriented business. Being able to relate to and engage people is very important. Diversified interests help a lot in being able to do this. So like I said, I approach it differently (maybe it's learned from my parents and relatives), but I appreciate you responding to me very much. It helps me to figure out what makes you tick.

blahblahblah 16y ago

The idea that if you don't program outside of work you're not a good programmer is just silly. I can understand that you might regard with some suspicion the abilities of someone who has never in their entire life written code outside of work. But, the idea that you must always continue to do so even when you have a day job programming is utter nonsense. Programming isn't my weekend hobby anymore. Why should it be? I get to do it every day at work and get paid for it now. That was the point of making it my career. It was something I already enjoyed doing and was good at that I could also make a living by doing. Am I automatically less passionate about it because I'm doing it for profit now? Of course not. I use my free time to do all of the other things that I enjoy doing. It's ok to have more than one passion. It won't harm your programming ability for you to program during the day and paint or write music in your spare time. On the contrary, you are more likely to show up for work each day refreshed and enthused about what you are doing precisely because you are doing other satisfying things after work.

raganwald 16y ago
edit: http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz http://raganwald.posterous.com/all-that-jazz
- blahblahblah 16y ago
  "Given any mechanism for filtering people, I claim that there are smart, productive people who will be filtered out. These are called false negatives. It is impossible to create a repeatable hiring process that does away with false negatives." While it is true that no test can avoid false negatives, it is also true that if the quantity measured by your test is uncorrelated with the phenomenon of interest then your test is neither sensitive nor specific and its PPV and NPV will be poor no matter where you set your decision threshold on the ROC curve. If you advocate such a test publicly, you should expect to be criticized for doing so. "I now understand that he was using a strategy for hiring people, not a metric for measuring me. His strategy for hiring people worked for his purposes. Why take that personally?" You could decide which programmer to hire based on skin color and write a blog advocating that "strategy" as well. (You'd get sued for doing so, but that's tangential to the point here.) If you did that, it would be unreasonable to expect the "it's just my strategy; it isn't about you, so don't take it personally" argument to be taken seriously. Whether you are aware of it or not, when you advocate a hiring practice publicly you are making an implicit claim that it has some validity and the community is right to spew vitriol in your direction if your hiring criteria are not well constrained within the realm of demonstrable merit and cross over into areas that are none of your damn business as an employer.