5 ms·

<Deleted>

by leesec 4y ago

my69thaccount 4y ago
- leesec 4y ago
lolinder 4y ago
Not doing side projects is not the same as stopping learning. OP addressed this in their last paragraph: if you're in a dead-end job that isn't teaching you anything, you'll learn faster by getting a new job where you can grow, rather than working overtime to teach yourself. You'll have more hours to learn in, other people to learn from, and real-world situations to adapt to. They also rightly point out that a good job teaches you valuable soft skills that you can't really get from side projects. More generally, it would be helpful if you explained more why you disagree. This comment and the paragraph you reference are both devoid of any actual explanation for your opinion beyond "it worked for me", while the commenter you're replying to has clearly thought things through.
- leesec 4y ago
  You interview two candidates, they both have exactly 1 year experience and no degree. They both have done satisfactory at their first role, but one has also stayed learning and has a few side projects to show for it. Which do you choose?
  - lolinder 4y ago
    If all else is equal, I'd go for the one with the side projects. But all else is never equal, and you haven't listed all the possible differentiators: * What if one spent a year doing the bare minimum at their job because their creative energies were wrapped up in their side projects, while the other took the lead on important tasks at work? * What if one spent a long time working on side projects that use arcane technology, while the other worked at a job that uses the same tech stack I do? * What if the one who worked on the side projects is distractible and never finishes anything while the one who didn't is focused and get stuff done? * What if the one who works on side projects doesn't get along well with others, while the other one avoids side projects because they prefer to be on a team? * What if one did side projects because their job bored them to tears, while the other was a key player on a small team and learned a ton from their job? The point is, side projects are just one signal among many, and they're far from the most important signal. This is important to keep in mind when strategizing your career, because it means that there are other things that are valuable to focus on; it's not just side projects or bust.
  - my69thaccount 4y ago
    The one who did better in the interview?
  - onion2k 4y ago
    Which do you choose? The one who interviews better, and who sounds like they'd be a better fit for the team. If one of them has been learning the things the team uses then that will shine through on their technical interview and coding test. If they've been learning something that's not used then it won't make any difference and won't put them any further ahead than the candidate who spent their spare time doing other things. Anecdotally, and this is just me rather than something that applies broadly in tech, but I don't want people on my team to work (or learn, or whatever) 16 hours a day. I want to work with people who are fun, interesting, and have interests outside of just working all the time. There's few things I find more tiresome on a Monday morning than when the PM asks "how was your weekend?" having someone on the team who never has anything to contribute. Those people are boring, and they make the rest of the team less willing to engage with one another. Coding is a team sport. If you're doing your best work on your own at 2am learning something new then you will not do well in many companies.

by leesec 4y ago

my69thaccount 4y ago

leesec 4y ago

lolinder 4y ago

Not doing side projects is not the same as stopping learning. OP addressed this in their last paragraph: if you're in a dead-end job that isn't teaching you anything, you'll learn faster by getting a new job where you can grow, rather than working overtime to teach yourself. You'll have more hours to learn in, other people to learn from, and real-world situations to adapt to. They also rightly point out that a good job teaches you valuable soft skills that you can't really get from side projects. More generally, it would be helpful if you explained more why you disagree. This comment and the paragraph you reference are both devoid of any actual explanation for your opinion beyond "it worked for me", while the commenter you're replying to has clearly thought things through.

leesec 4y ago
You interview two candidates, they both have exactly 1 year experience and no degree. They both have done satisfactory at their first role, but one has also stayed learning and has a few side projects to show for it. Which do you choose?
- lolinder 4y ago
  If all else is equal, I'd go for the one with the side projects. But all else is never equal, and you haven't listed all the possible differentiators: * What if one spent a year doing the bare minimum at their job because their creative energies were wrapped up in their side projects, while the other took the lead on important tasks at work? * What if one spent a long time working on side projects that use arcane technology, while the other worked at a job that uses the same tech stack I do? * What if the one who worked on the side projects is distractible and never finishes anything while the one who didn't is focused and get stuff done? * What if the one who works on side projects doesn't get along well with others, while the other one avoids side projects because they prefer to be on a team? * What if one did side projects because their job bored them to tears, while the other was a key player on a small team and learned a ton from their job? The point is, side projects are just one signal among many, and they're far from the most important signal. This is important to keep in mind when strategizing your career, because it means that there are other things that are valuable to focus on; it's not just side projects or bust.
- my69thaccount 4y ago
  The one who did better in the interview?
- onion2k 4y ago
  Which do you choose? The one who interviews better, and who sounds like they'd be a better fit for the team. If one of them has been learning the things the team uses then that will shine through on their technical interview and coding test. If they've been learning something that's not used then it won't make any difference and won't put them any further ahead than the candidate who spent their spare time doing other things. Anecdotally, and this is just me rather than something that applies broadly in tech, but I don't want people on my team to work (or learn, or whatever) 16 hours a day. I want to work with people who are fun, interesting, and have interests outside of just working all the time. There's few things I find more tiresome on a Monday morning than when the PM asks "how was your weekend?" having someone on the team who never has anything to contribute. Those people are boring, and they make the rest of the team less willing to engage with one another. Coding is a team sport. If you're doing your best work on your own at 2am learning something new then you will not do well in many companies.