One of the most frustrating things for me, I feel, is that hardly any of the code I have written is on Github for various reasons (NDA, proprietary code, etc). So when an employer asks me for my Github, what do I do? Do I send him my account showing off my code from 3 years ago containing only a script I didn't really care about?
I don't mind a Github being used in conjunction with other resources (the projects I've worked on / Linkedin / etc), but god help me if it ever becomes the standard -- I'll be unemployable.
I really don't think you have much to worry about. A track record of open source contributions is one of many calling cards a developer can have today. The fact, however, is that there aren't enough excellent developers for all the roles that need them. It's a seller's market.
Having said all that: no matter what you've been doing for the last 5 years, proprietary or open source, most developers suck at "goal-directed" networking. One way to overcome that obstacle is to make targeted open source contributions to projects your preferred future employers pay attention to, as a way of meeting people who can recommend you for a role in the future. If you're like most developers, you may find this easier than the standard networking approach of asking people out for coffee, even if it involves extra coding effort.
> One of the most frustrating things for me, I feel, is that hardly any of the code I have written is on Github for various reasons (NDA, proprietary code, etc). So when an employer asks me for my Github, what do I do? Do I send him the my account showing off my code from 3 years ago containing only a script I didn't really care about?
The not-so-easy answer is: find time to contribute to the open source community. This is difficult if your time is already spent though.
Or don't, and just be really really good with marketable technologies. The opposite of your advice also holds: you can spend a whole lot of time doing excellent open source and still end up with a crappy job.
This is difficult if your time is already spent though.
Exactly. In my spare time I program, but many times it's on client projects that are on top of the 40 hours I work at my job, both of which probably wouldn't want me to post my code on Github. I have a passion for programming, but I'd rather a potential employer focus on what I've done -- just because my Github is empty doesn't mean my portfolio is as well.
That goes for me too. In fact, you could flip the advice: if you're such a great and experienced programmer looking for work, why have you spent so much time being paid well to do commercial work? Why have you not spent your time working for your employer and resting outside of work?
When I've spoken to (good) recruiters, they've downplayed the whole github/blog thing. We might use that (they say), but it will depend very much on the job we're going for. Usually once I talk to a techie for a while they get a pretty good idea of what I'm about technically (and vice versa). If they're not a techie, then github/blog will be of only limited use.
So you're saying that he would be a better prospective employee if he spent less time working on his primary job and instead spent more time writing other code? That seems totally counterintuitive to me.
He asked what to do if an employer asks for his Github and he has nothing current on it. I answered with "fill it with your open source contributions." You're free to draw whatever conclusions you want from that.
This is exactly why Github will not ever be the standard. It's fine to show off what you play around with in your spare time, but the very best and most productive workers actually won't have an extensive up-to-date Github repo. This is because they're been gainfully employed and have spent the vast majority of their coding time kicking ass at their real job.
In short, while people with impressive Github contributions can generally be good employees (but not always!), many good employees simply don't have time or interest for open source / side projects.
It's fine to show off what you play around with in your spare time, but the very best and most productive workers actually won't have an extensive up-to-date Github repo. This is because they're been gainfully employed and have spent the vast majority of their coding time kicking ass at their real job.
Coming from the Rails world, this isn't true. Through my job, I fix problems with Rails or plugins I encounter. This may only account for say two percent of my development time, but that is significant enough to have a trail of pull requests.
I'm not sure that's what he's saying; I for one find my open source contributions decrease when I'm doing work I find fulfilling during the hours of 9-5...
Not all employers care for open-source code samples. But the ones who do are looking to hire people with a deep passion for programming: developers with a passion so strong that they're willing to spend hours of their free time writing open-source libraries and contributing to the open-source world.
I wonder how many employers actually search for (or would look at) GitHub repos? We are a bit biased here, right? Lots of folks working on bleeding edge projects leveraging lots of little open source projects--so, of course, we think "does candidate X have a GitHub profile?" But I reckon in many markets, many programmers might not even know GitHub exists.
Personally, I'd do some searching on a candidate, and would be rather happy to find code of theirs online, but I won't hold it against the candidate if the search doesn't find anything interesting.
My experience supports this. Most of the software we write is so far from the bleeding edge that you could safely lick it.
In all the years I've interviewed, I have only once interviewed someone with OSS experience (he was hired, BTW, but not specifically for that reason). I've seen resumes that listed OSS contributions that didn't make it past the phone screen though.
I've often wondered if it was just that many programmers don't think that their open source work is worth putting on a resume since it wasn't done in the context of a day job.
That's my feeling too, that this stuff is hot for the startup / dotcom hiring people which is a minority of the programming jobs out there, which are mainly intranet business stuff.
Most of us work in jobs where we don't share our code with the public. Most of us work in jobs which take up all of our time, and we try to have a life away from the computer when we're not at work. That's what makes us interesting people.
Work is a social environment. If all you do all day is code at work, then come home and code all night, you're not going to be a very interesting person. Go see movies, read books, meet with others, meet a girl/boy, learn to cook, develop a hobby... etc.
If you have to show code in an interview, just take some of your proprietary code which shows that you know how to program, remove/obscure all business-specific information (inline docs, comments, variable names), and use that. Of course, don't select the one algorithm that makes your current company special, rather pick some typical/mundane code that shows what you can do.
The bottom line is that this is the situation that most people are in, and we understand this situation when we're interviewing you for our company. Don't sweat it.
Whether you want it to be or not, Github is part of your online resume and smart employers look at it. I would recommend having an empty account rather than an account with 3 year old code that you don't care about.
Your account doesn't have to be filled with projects, but a few patches to open source projects you are using can be really valuable for someone who wants to read a little of your code before investing time and energy in an interview.
I don't mind a Github being used in conjunction with other resources (the projects I've worked on / Linkedin / etc), but god help me if it ever becomes the standard -- I'll be unemployable.