[onebot]

What should be the Dribbble equivalent for software engineers then? All I hear these days is, whiteboards for hiring is bad, asking to do a sample project for hiring is bad, now GitHub is bad. I don't know when software engineers became such "I don't want to show my work" industry.

Having a portfolio to show what your capable of is a great way to set yourself apart. I don't think anyone is expecting you to have developed Linux from scratch. But something is better than nothing. Which do you think is more likely to get an interview, someone with several source GitHub projects or someone that says "all my work was closed sourced" and has nothing to show.

Having founded three startups now (2x acquired), most of the best engineers I have ever worked with have a noticeably more active Github/Bitbucket/Gitlab portfolio than the average. In my experience, great engineers have public proof (open source, a self produced product, book, etc) of their craft vs nothing at all.

Now to be clear, just because someone has an active Github, or a book, or whatever doesn't mean you should hire on the spot. But should be someone you'd prioritize over someone that is seemingly too lazy to do any related extra circular activity.

[scarface74]

I do plenty of extra curricular activity.They don't involve coding.

I’ve also hired developers. I have a simplified version of a real world project that we are working on. The methods are skeletons with no code and a bunch of failing unit tests. Part 1 they have to get the unit test passing. Then I give them a harder set of requirements with unit tests. They have to make the second set pass without breaking the first set.

It tells you a lot about how someone thinks.

[onebot]

I do the same as well, I think it is a great approach. It is just a paring exercise, the language of their choice, their equipment, full internet access. We just build something like a calculator or pig latin translator. Something that you build up in layers. I usually read off the test cases one step at a time, in hopes that they write their own tests along the way.

But hiring good people is very time consuming. The reason GitHub as a portfolio makes sense, is that it helps compare potential candidates--that I know nothing about--faster. Biased or not, I have had the best experience with people that are very active publicly. From Battlebots competitors, book authors, to startup founders, etc.

Ivy League Colleges, VCs, even Y-Combinator works very much the same way--trying to make an assessment based on past accomplishments. The more visible, the better. With the caveat being a strong direct reference.

I am sure we all have extra circular activities besides coding, but depending on how strong your experience or professional network is, really depends on how much you need in a portfolio. I have been coding since I was nine and have decades of experience, I still have stuff I hack on that is public, from SlackBots that control GPIO pins to Sonos controllers, etc. I would think the more experience you have, the better chances you would have more stuff you can add to your GitHub (portfolio).

At the end of the day, as a someone hiring, I am going to gravitate to engineers that have more and better examples of their work ability and output vs where they worked on their Resume. Not to say that we should ignore anyone that doesn't have public projects--but they are certainly at a disadvantage against someone that has.

[scarface74]

I had two positions open recently. The recruiter gave me 15 resumes, I narrowed that down to 6, spent one day doing phone screens, narrowed that down to three, invited both for the same day then I had them do the coding interview I mentioned above.

I narrowed that down to two and made offers the same day.

[onebot]

You're about a 13% hire rate. Google is about 0.2%, Apple 2%, and Harvard is 7%.

[scarface74]

And not everyone wants to work for Google or Apple and not every company needs a Google level employee. Most developers are doing boring line of business apps....

[whatyoucantsay]

Reid Hoffman has a great answer for this in his book. References are the most important thing there is.

Given the choice between not being able to interview and not being able to get references, you'd do better hiring sight unseen based off of strong recommendations from a source you trust than from conducting thorough interviews without references.

[onebot]

100% Agree!

[arvinsim]

> that is seemingly too lazy to do any related extra circular activity.

So people with life responsibilities are too "lazy" just because they don't code outside work?

[closeparen]

>I don't know when software engineers became such "I don't want to show my work" industry.

Expecting potential hires to labor over portfolios and prepare extensively for auditions is a luxury enjoyed by the few most badly oversupplied artistic fields.

[bassman9000]

seemingly too lazy

Some people aren't in the mood for extra curricular activity after working +14h a day. They rather unwind, and be productive the day after in their not-pushing-to-github jobs.

[onebot]

And here you are on HN. It is hard to buy this argument. Instead of reading HN for a week, hack out a little app and toss it up on GitHub. I am almost certain that is more valuable for you than opining here.

[whatyoucantsay]

Another factor is very large employers having policies regarding open source and requiring each OSS contribution to go through legal.

HN, particularly under a pseudonym, is somewhat more accessible for those under the watchful eye of $BIG_CORP.