10 ms·
Well that's precisely how it works, why would you expect an employer to review your code for free? Instead they'll just look at whether you contributed to big
by mgaunard 5y ago
Well that's precisely how it works, why would you expect an employer to review your code for free?
Instead they'll just look at whether you contributed to big projects.
Someone who managed to make significant contributions to Linux or LLVM for example might be better than the average joe.
- chii 5y ago> Someone who managed to make significant contributions to Linux or LLVM for example might be better than the average joe. which leads to people who want to use this mechanism to claim credit in projects they don't actually have contributions in, and because the employer doesn't actually look at the code, they cannot tell. I recall a while ago where someone would contribute a skeleton README or some random typo fixes to many different project, and using that to make their claim to fame. So i reject the idea that employers should use open source contributions as a metric without closely examining what those contributions are.
- mgaunard 5y agoThere will always be people that lie or embelish what they did. One of the big reasons for technical interviews is to assess how much of what the candidate claims is true.
- swiftcoder 5y ago> Someone who managed to make significant contributions to Linux or LLVM for example might be better than the average joe. Specifically, may be better at navigating the politics of organisations. Which is a key skill at many employers - likely equal to or more important than technical skill as one ascends through the ranks.