[_lacroix]

Also, a principal engineer is more likely to be older and have a family and other commitments outside of work. They're therefore less likely to be able to spend all their free time working on side projects or contributing to open source. If you have a robust github profile with lots of contributions that's great, especially for a junior, but I dislike this expectation that candidates should be judged on whether or not they spend their free time coding outside of work. When I get home I want to log off and spend time with my friends and family, get outdoors, exercise, cook, read, participate in other hobbies etc etc. Not all of us are 22-year-old startup kids whose lifestyle consists of work-party-code 24/7 - and that's okay (no shade to those kids, I used to be one but I'm old and boring now...and a much better engineer). Nobody judges lawyers on how many case briefs they read in their free time or asks doctors to spend the weekends treating their friends and family for minor ailments. It's silly.

[bE9a3S5So8igd3]

> whether or not they spend their free time coding outside of work

I would argue that candidates should absolutely be judged on whether they have significant portfolio work available to view publicly. Of course, this is dependent on the hiring managers' being competent.

Candidates shouldn't necessarily be judged on not having any public portfolio work though. I'm an advocate for take-home challenges. I think these give the best representation of actual work.

[_lacroix]

What do you mean? They should be judged on whether or not they have something that they should not necessarily be judged for NOT having? That doesn't make any sense. But yes I'm in favor of take home challenges as well. I know a lot of people hate them but it's the best way to get an idea of how someone will work under normal constraints (i.e. not during a timed hackerrank exercise).