[rue]

Even the "paying real money" bit is unnecessary.

Having some working, usable sample code - whether your own project or participation in someone else's - obviously provides some gauge of what you can do but also indicates that you can make a program, maybe work with other people, maybe understand the various things involved in the process. Quite a few people come into the workforce only knowing how to write code, which while a prerequisite is nothing like actually programming. If you know the difference, you have a leg-up already.

Networking is important, and even someone like me can do some of it sort of incidentally by joining the local <Technology> User Group etc.

[aaronbrethorst]

Proving that you can do everything—and that you understand a business' lifecycle—is going to be incredibly valuable in an interview, especially in a smaller company (but certainly not limited to them).

Being able to point to a real product being used by real people who had paid me real dollars for it has made a significant difference for me in job interviews in the past, especially for my first real job out of college at Microsoft.

Today, I'm a startup co-founder. If I'm looking to hire a developer, and I see that a candidate knows how to not only create software, but also market it and sell it, AND that they recognize the value in those other two steps, I'm significantly more likely to call them in for an in-person interview.

And besides, with any luck you'll generate enough money off your own software that you can tell all those companies you're looking to for a job to piss off ;)

[rue]

Yeah, I am sure it is good to have. Just not necessary, particularly if mistaking it to be causes failure, stress or paralysis. One should strive to have something up there. If it pays, I guess that is a bonus.

It is not your fault, but overemphasis on "monetization" or whatever the preferred word may be is really unappealing to me here.

[aaronbrethorst]

I'm sorry you find it distasteful, but it's important to me, and likely to you too. Monetization comes in many forms, including the paychecks you might collect every two weeks, or the grad student stipend you might collect at the beginning of the term, or in many other forms.

Paying rent and being able to eat are nice, and they're the direct result of monetizing something

[pyre]

I think he was referring to your insistence that showing an actual working product to someone in no way demonstrates your job potential as a programmer unless you already have a business running around the product with paying customers. The idea that paying customers demonstrates one's programming abilities is laughable. "If you build it, they will come," is a phrase best left in the theaters.

Not to mention creating a product that is great does not in and of itself generate a customer base. You have to use your business/marketing acumen to get that. And in a lot of cases, you can cover up your lack of programming skills by over compensating in the business or marketing areas.

[aaronbrethorst]

Having a working product with positive customer feedback is no Kevin Costner Hollywood gimmick; it takes tons of hard work. 'If you build a good product that can attract users, you'll have an easier job of convincing potential employers of your usefulness' is the only point I'm trying to get across. Do you disagree with that notion?

I'm perplexed and somewhat disturbed by what I interpret as an assertion that creating a successful product indicates a lack of software development skills. Am I misunderstanding you?

[rue]

I am merely arguing that for a relative newb, trying to make money in addition to writing code is too much pressure for want of better term. In my opinion, bringing it up serves as a distraction more than anything. I may be wrong, of course, but I think the focus should merely be on the programming. There is a a whole lot to learn.

[pyre]

> Having a working product with positive customer feedback is no Kevin Costner Hollywood gimmick; it takes tons of hard work.

Hard work != Good software development skills

Granted you have to have at least some base level of skill, but I don't feel that the bar is necessarily that high.

> 'If you build a good product that can attract users, you'll have an easier job of convincing potential employers of your usefulness' is the only point I'm trying to get across. Do you disagree with that notion?

I don't disagree with that. I just feel that you are putting too much emphasis on 'monetization' when you're trying to get that point across. 'Monetization' is a completely different skill set from software development. The product doesn't attract users all on its own. You have to market it, and marketing is not a software development skill.

Creating a profitable side business around a product that you created is impressive, but not everyone can do it because it requires an individual that has a number of skills that don't fall under 'software developer.' Acting like only the people that can create a product, market it and manage the finances surrounding it (as well as make tough business decisions, etc) are the only people worth looking at as developers is a little over-the-top.

> I'm perplexed and somewhat disturbed by what I interpret as an assertion that creating a successful product indicates a lack of software development skills. Am I misunderstanding you?

You are. Creating a successful product requires more than just software development skills. In fact, it only implies a base level of software development skills. You cannot use it to deduce the actual level of a person's software development skills, only that they have a minimum level. It's possible for someone to be a super-skilled developer, but have mediocre marketing/business skills. If the job only calls for development skills, why should that person be discounted for a lack of skills not related to the job?