[lj3]

> I wouldn't want to hire someone who didn't enjoy coding enough that they didn't have something on publicly visible repo.

Why? Those people sound like terrible employees. Those are the people who come into work to punch the clock and get paid while saving their energy and creativity for their side projects, which is what they'd really rather be working on.

[jghn]

Most of my coding output for my job ends up on a public github repo, which is the best of both worlds.

[lj3]

That would be nice. Are you a library or framework developer?

[jghn]

I work for a nonprofit. The downside is the pay isn't as great as it could be elsewhere. The upside is that the work is meaningful and I get to write OSS as part of my day job.

[sqeaky]

I worded my comment poorly, I had double negatives, or something.

I would prefer to hire people with publicly visible code.

[lj3]

Your comment was worded fine. My point is that most code written for most companies is not publicly accessible. Therefore, most code that is publicly accessible was created as a side project in their spare time.

I don't know about you, but after working an 8-10 hour day, anything I make in my off hours is a steaming pile of shit. Certainly nothing I'd be showing to potential employers. Do you know who can make jewels after 8-10 hours of work? People who punch the clock, do the bare minimum and save their creative energies for their side projects after they get home. That's not somebody I would hire.

Another scenario is the person really is just a coding machine and does so 12+ hours a day. Those people burn out, eventually.