undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdvcrn9y ago0 comments

> Not stuff the applicant was doing on the "side" during his/her previous years of employment. Am I totally wrong here?

Hmm, the way I see it is that side projects usually demonstrate that you have a passion for code outside of your work as well. From a company perspective I would probably also hire someone who is using his free time to advance his knowledge since some of that stuff he is using/learning could also become useful for the company at some point.

I personally don't mean any harm with my projects. I just really like coding, creating things and learning more (my way of learning also being to experiment/build something with technology X). The field is so broad and there are so many interesting things to learn about with new ones getting released almost weekly.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

TAForObvReasons9y ago· 2 in thread

> side projects usually demonstrate that you have a passion for code outside of your work

In other industries, these are called "portfolios" or "writing samples". It's not just about showing a passion; it's your chance to make a piece of work that represents your best abilities and judgments.

When I interview candidates I find it easier and more constructive to ask design questions about the side projects than to contrive some hypothetical scenario.

IMHO the alternative, where you ask people to write code under the pressure of an interview setting, is far less informative.

dasil0039y ago

I know what you mean, but it's also easier to fake. I've definitely run into the situation where someone's projects look good, but then they are terrible on the job. I'm left to conclude they were pairing with someone more knowledgeable or cloning some idea or maybe has spent years preparing to tackle that one problem and are not good in general problem solving.

Not saying you won't get a lot of false negatives with high-pressure on-site coding or whiteboarding, but if done correctly I think it's probably the most signal you can get for the least time. Granted it requires good judgement from the interviewer, and a lot of candidates to calibrate. It's also unfair to candidates who are easily rattled, and biased towards candidates who have time to do a lot of preparation. In the past I have preferred contract-to-hire as the gold standard if that works for a candidate, but that only works if the pipeline is small.

dj-wonk9y ago

I also think that contract-to-hire is a good option to consider. Vetting a small, unknown company requires time and effort.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse