[cks]

> If you have a life, I don't want you.

Seriously, there is a lot of judgement in that sentence.

"Having a life", having a family is a matter of choice. I can choose not to have a family and work on my pet projects. I choose how I spend my time. If I sacrifice relationships in favor of pet projects, does that make me a lesser person? could it possibly make me a better software developer?

Is it really unreasonable to imagine that there are many talented software developers in the "lifeless" set of people with pet projects? Perhaps the author is of the opinion that the set of people with pet projects have higher ratio of talent compared to the full set. That is not to say that there are not passionate talented people without pet projects.

[0x12]

You can read a judgement in there if you want to, it is actually the opposite. I think having/not having pet projects or other life choices you make outside of your professional hours should not have such a direct impact on being hired or not.

Of course you are free to make your choices any way you see fit and if you choose work over personal relationships that does not make you a lesser person.

So you can have your pet projects and another person could have their family (or both, or none!) and I think the only thing that should matter during the job interview is what they intend to do during their shifts and whether or not they are capable of doing that to the best of their abilities. Your free time is yours, not your employers and is non of your employers business.

[cks]

My point is that having pet projects might actually increase software development skills. In the same way that practicing any activity generally makes you better at it. People who're good at socializing, basketball, football or whatever typically invests time in it. The more you do it the better you get at it. Why shouldn't the same apply to software development?

A person who invest their free time in relationships or sports will probably get better at those things than a person who only invests in pet projects, but why shouldn't the person investing in pet projects get better at his/her activity?

I think it's unfair to say that the employer should ignore all skills achieved your in spare time because other people choose to spend their time differently.