[deckard1]

why would a software dev have a portfolio? The comparison to design or writing doesn't make sense. A graphic designer can point to logos or marketing material that is publicly available. I'm not going to put proprietary code on a portfolio nor am I going to spend multiple years building some open source project when I already have a full time job.

Software engineering must be the only profession where employment history means nothing. And yet... interviewers always want salary history to knock you down. If you don't care about the work I did in the past, then why do you care about how much I was given for that work?

[JohnFen]

> why would a software dev have a portfolio?

For the same reason artists do -- to show a potential employer what you're capable of and what your style is. Look at it from the employer's point of view -- they have very little to go on when judging ability. If you can provide examples of your work, then you're reducing their uncertainty and giving yourself an edge for the position.

> I'm not going to put proprietary code on a portfolio nor am I going to spend multiple years building some open source project when I already have a full time job.

You don't have to do either of those things. Your portfolio doesn't have to include large, complex projects. A collection of smaller ones will do nicely. Or, even easier, is what I do: I just bring in the code for the most recent hobby project that I've completed.

> interviewers always want salary history to knock you down

You don't need to provide that history. At least, I never do. When I'm asked, I respond with what my salary expectation is, not what my salary history is.

[bulatb]

>> why would a software dev have a portfolio?

> For the same reason artists do

They're asking more how it would happen, less for what purpose.

Artists automatically accumulate portfolios by doing work that gets displayed in public. Programmers who work on closed-source programs don't—unless they supplement their work-for-pay in ways that artists aren't expected to. The artist's history of work itself is how they get more work; the programmer's isn't.

[johnnyanmac]

>They're asking more how it would happen, less for what purpose.

open source projects in a relevant industry. IME it's never been required to have sample work to show off, but many agree that having some OS contributions or even small pet projects is one of the most valuable things to leverage, outside of actual work experience.

>The artist's history of work itself is how they get more work; the programmer's isn't.

No one is really going to care behind closed doors, but _technically_ there's plenty of concept/scrapped art owned by the company that they can't directly point to on their public portfolio. It's not quite as easy for artists either to show off what may have been their best work.

[JohnFen]

As I said, how I do this is to bring in the code for my hobby projects.

> The artist's history of work itself is how they get more work; the programmer's isn't.

It's just a recommended strategy, not a requirement. In general, it's a great idea to identify a customer's pain points and reduce them. When you're looking for a job, the companies you're talking to are the customers. The easier you make things for the interviewer, the more you can reduce their pain points, the better your chances for the position.

[bulatb]

The person you replied to is annoyed they have to do that when it seems like others don't. They think they shouldn't have to and it isn't fair they do. Explaining how to do it fundamentally does not address their point.

If you're trying to explain how they can do it with the least amount of extra work, to minimize the impact of the extra expectation, please consider that not everyone has hobby projects. Even fewer people's hobby projects are presentable, and even fewer still can trust the other person not to draw some wild conclusion based on anything that might be in there.

I think everyone is clear on how the situation works, but not everyone is happy with it working that way.

[johnnyanmac]

>Software engineering must be the only profession where employment history means nothing

Nah, Artists have it the worst when it comes to that. Especially early on.

SWE's for the most part leverage titles and company names a bit too much IMO. No licenses + very little way to verify actual contributions = tons of potential false positives.

> interviewers always want salary history to knock you down.

That's pretty much every single job in the history of ever. if it's not a minimum wage job, they are trying to minimize your compensation somehow.

[ghaff]

Sure, employment history matters. But, if you're in a field where some job-seekers can point to relevant concrete work products they've created they may have an advantage over those who can't. Maybe that's not fair but it's the way it often is.

[throwmeout123]

Software IS writing. Software IS literature. You might disagree right now but that’s what it is.

[sdf4j]

right, literature nobody outside the company is allowed to read.

Just like plumbing is literature, except with pipes.

[throwmeout123]

Literature never included the aspect of being public. In any case your colleagues read it, so it’s actually read by someone

[hardware2win]

Wut?

You dont need multi year projects

Just show PoCs of complex stuff

Simple distributed apps? Compilers? Uefi drivers? Or small Libraries?