"We've read your code"

http://blog.jgc.org/2010/09/weve-read-your-code.html

by jgrahamc • 16 years ago

153 82 16 years ago

blog.jgc.org

CWIZO2• 16 years ago

Just today I interviewed someone for a programming position. I asked him if any of his code is publicly available (a open source project, a small library, anything) and unfortunately he said no. So now I have to bring him in for a coding interview.

It really saves a lot of time if you have something out there. Just make sure that the first thing one finds is something you want them to see (not some crappy code you wrote two years ago).

scrrr• 16 years ago

A friend was recently asked the same, also said no, and was declined the interview. He is a very capable software developer.

It seems like being active on GitHub is slowly becoming almost a requirement in order to land a good job. I wonder if that is a good thing.

chrisbroadfoot• 16 years ago

Being active with open source communities is definitely a huge advantage, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that you need to be active on GitHub. There are other ways to contribute open code :)

CWIZO2• 16 years ago

I'd never reject someone on that point alone. I'm guilty of not having anything (at least not something I'd like to show) out there too (thou I am working on it).

dataguy• 16 years ago

I like your last sentence. I am also sceptical if this is a good thing. And with reason: If you are working as a skilled software architect - and you work on projects under NDA or other laws/contracts for a long time, it could definitely come to the result that you do not have "current code" somewhere out there on github and such sites. And not everybody has the time or the reason to contribute or start an open source project. That even becomes more critical if you want to do other things in your non-working time than coding. If you have the chance to work for a company where you are allowed and instructed to work on open source projects and technology, then you are lucky. But I doubt that the major of software designers does so.

fender• 16 years ago

It happened to me but I was given a chance to prove my worth to them. It was a small company (basically a start up) , To cut the whole thing short I ended up with a job and worked with them for 2 years.

cperciva• 16 years ago

It seems like being active on GitHub is slowly becoming almost a requirement in order to land a good job.

You know, there is open source software which isn't on GitHub.

Personally I'm far more impressed with someone who has a commit bit on a project like FreeBSD, because it shows an ability to work together with other people. Having code on GitHub just shows that you're able to fork someone else's work.

nickelplate2• 16 years ago

"A friend was recently asked the same, also said no, and was declined the interview."

I think that's retarded. There are more effective ways to filter out bad apples. Candidates could be asked to solve a puzzle and attach their solution to their application, for example. Most of the really good developers I know stopped coding in their free time after accumulating about 5-8 years of experience. They have other commitments (wife, kids...) and their day job is challenging enough as it is.

pierrefar2• 16 years ago

The downside is when someone finds code you haven't touched in 10 years and would disavow now and think it's your current standard.

So make sure you keep the home pages of such projects updated by saying "this project has been dormant since...".

novel2• 16 years ago

Moreover, you have to be careful when uploading new code, when a new idea strikes into your head and you quickly implement a prototype, probably not in a very clean way and without unittests and stuff. This doesn't go well in conjunction with 'release early, release often' rule.

IgorPartola4• 16 years ago

I think if you open source something it's kind of an obligation to clean up and comment your code at least a bit, job search or not.

billswift• 16 years ago

If that is how many OS wannabes think, no wonder that I have heard that most new projects just sit there taking up server space. "Release early, release often" is for after the initial release; as ESR has noted several places, if you actually want other people to contribute to your project, you have to get it into reasonable shape first, then release it.

sbov• 16 years ago

For me, new code never goes into a public repository.

I use a private repository in addition to a public one. All partially finished ideas, quick prototypes, etc, go into the private one. If a project ever gets into decent shape, I move it over to a public one.

Tichy• 16 years ago

All code kind of sucks anyway...

mikemol4• 16 years ago

Most recent commit date? Such things really speak for themselves.

pierrefar2• 16 years ago

Good point. You're assuming that 10 years ago you released software properly instead of just zipping up some PHP scripts and offering that for download.

swanson2• 16 years ago

I actually keep some crusty old code on github intentionally. Since github sorts your profile page based on last commit, it shows up near the bottom of the list anyways. By having gross old code, I can show how much I have improved and advanced myself.

Looking at code that I wrote a few years ago (like when I was first learning OO and Python) and comparing it to more recent projects is like night and day. It helps me to not feel so inferior on those days when I read too much HN and get too hard on myself -- and I would think that an employer would be interested in seeing growth and improvement.

InclinedPlane2• 16 years ago

What would you say are the most important differences between your bad, old code and the way you code currently?

raganwald• 16 years ago

The "problem" with old code is the same as the "problem" with old blog posts. Sturgeon's Revelation applies: 90% of anything is crap.

I trust that someone surfing the net for words I've written is aware that some are better than others. Likewise, I trust that someone surfing Github for code I've written has the same expectation that most of it will not be my best work.

Curating your work is not "free." In addition to the time cost, if I was worried about people assuming I'm a bozo after looking at my work I would probably avoid posting the things I've written that were failures like the Ick gem in Ruby.

That in turn might avoid being rejected sight unseen but it would also eliminate the possibility that someone would ask me, "So, Ick looks like a crap idea. What were you thinking? If you agree it's crap, what have you learned?"

devmonk• 16 years ago

We don't all get the time to setup beautiful open-source projects with beautiful tests and code.

I have a number of projects I've started or contributed significantly to that anyone can peruse if they want, but I'm definitely not proud of the code in all of them.

If you use this type of post ( http://blog.jgc.org/2010/09/weve-read-your-code.html ) as a wakeup call to make your code better, that's fine. But, would it make sense to remove open-source projects that aren't your best work, with the rationalization that few if any are using them and they are a bad reflection on your coding skills? If your code is bad and is misleading/doesn't work and provides no benefit to others, take it down or fix it. Otherwise, I say leave it alone, and feel free to leave it attached to your name.

I've met more developers who were afraid (imo) to start or share anything open-source even though they certainly could have (because I was working with them, and I did, without any harm coming to me yet). As Frank Herbert once wrote, "Fear is the mind-killer." Don't let the fear of sharing overtake you.

IgorPartola4• 16 years ago

Why not put up a message on the project's site saying that the code is old, unsupported and not really up to your standard anymore. Maybe list your current projects.

IgorPartola4• 16 years ago

In my last job search I put my resume on my blog (thereby refusing to send out Word files) and pointed potential employers to that, my OSS projects and my HN identity. Seemed to have worked :).

edw519• 16 years ago

This works both ways.

I have looked at other people's code and screamed, "Who wrote this &%*$^#?!?!?"

Unfortunately, half the time it's my own.

chegra• 16 years ago

What is your github address?

umjames• 16 years ago

I think that means that all code you expose to the public should have the date it was created and last modified preferably in the files themselves. If your later code is better than the earlier code, it shows you're learning to program better.

bullseye• 16 years ago

http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Please-Think-Twice.aspx

mgkimsal2• 16 years ago

The flip side of this is a job I interviewed for (and actually did take) several years ago. I brought printed copies of some code I'd recently worked on (not sure why I didn't just bring a laptop!).

Towards the end of the interview I brought it out and asked if the interviewer would like to review some of it with me. I was told "No". "Why not?" I asked. "Not everyone has the ability to bring code, and it would be unfair to look at yours if we can't look at everyone's."

I was slightly flabbergasted, thought the logic was 100% wrong, but was offered the job and took it despite that. I was there about 2 years, and the first 18 months or so were generally enjoyable, but nothing lasts forever. :/

InclinedPlane2• 16 years ago

That's a pathological hiring mentality, it's not a contest, it's an attempt to make your company better by adding new talent. Good interviewers / recruiters use every trick possible to make sure they hire the best candidate.

mgkimsal2• 16 years ago

That's what I thought. But when you have an odd view of 'best', then you take odd steps.

That episode sticks with me years later because it was the only time it's ever turned out that way.

JoachimSchipper• 16 years ago

Some blindness can help you find better candidates - not telling the recruiter whether the candidate is a member of <minority> may actually help quality (while decreasing information), for instance.

Of course, in many/most cases, more information does help. But it's not automatic.

saturdayplace• 16 years ago

Shortly after I started working my first real job, my manager had to attend training regarding how to hire and interview. One of the things they drilled into her was to make all the interviews as alike as possible. You MUST ask each candidate identical questions. Her impression was that this was to protect the company in the event an un-chosen candidate found about the differences and could find some grounds to sue. It's possible your experience sprung from the same lawsuit-averse well.

yardie• 16 years ago

It's probably better to blast something out there so everyone can see it and possibly offer some advice. I've had plenty of things that were in the experimental phase and left at that. If someone really wants to see what I'm up to or what I'm interested in than it's far better to have said something than to remain quiet and invisible.

I've met far too many programmers who are reluctant to share because they are ashamed of their code but quick to point out someone else's public flaws. It's just easier to criticize than be constructive. If someone isn't releasing memory properly ,in a public repo, then a 2-minute email will straighten that out.

merijnv• 16 years ago

Do people here think there's any importance to how professional/personal the domain name of your site is? For example, I registered inconsistent.nl (currently sadly empty because I nuked my web server in an experiment and still haven't gotten around to fixing it properly) because it fits my outlook on a lot of parts of the world. And as a bonus it works equally well as a Dutch or English domain. But other people keep telling me it is to unprofessional...

jamii• 16 years ago

I've been doing freelance work for enterprisey companies from the domain name scattered-thoughts and noone has batted an eyelid. I think for a personal website you're fine as long as its a name you would be comfortable explaining to a client. Obviously if the website is dedicated solely to your business its a different matter.

kingkilr• 16 years ago

Basically how I got my current gig, I knew my (now) boss from some open source work, they were looking for a contractor, and I had a job. No interview, no nothing, just a discussion of the terms and then down to business. Economists like to say complete information generates efficiency (or something to that effect), case in point.

abstractbill3• 16 years ago

I've been lucky because "John Graham-Cumming" is close to a unique ID.

When my wife and I got married, a couple of years ago, we decided to invent a new name for ourselves. I googled each alternative we came up with, and made sure the name we chose wasn't already taken. Sometimes you get to make your own luck!

kragen• 16 years ago

Ours was "Sitaker". What was yours?

abstractbill3• 16 years ago

Moorier. My mother's maiden name is Moore, so we tweaked that a bit to make it sound French (my wife being half French).

chaosmachine• 16 years ago

Personally, I'd be inclined to go the other way and change my name to John Smith. I'd rather not be easily Googleable by my real name. That's what handles and business names are for.

acqq• 16 years ago

Yes, once you start to "promote" yourself your personality becomes "public" and different privacy conditions start to apply to you. Don't be surprised of the effects.

presidentender• 16 years ago

My name is unique to begin with; I've taken further steps to own it on the internet. I made the mistake of tying it to this username, once, which has led (for better or worse) to a greater discretion under this username.

gaius2• 16 years ago

Just for my own curiousity: was that your idea or hers?

abstractbill3• 16 years ago

A bit of both. I wanted us to have the same name, but she is very proud of her French family name and disliked mine a lot (can't blame her - I had always felt the same). We looked through extended family names and couldn't find anything we liked, and then I think it hit us both at about the same time - we could just invent one ;)

agentultra• 16 years ago

You're quite lucky then. I don't think I've been in an interview where the interviewer had bothered to read any of my code despite it being offered and out in the open. They don't even skim a few headlines from my blog first. I'm lucky if they know my name without reading my resume in front of me.

mleonhard• 16 years ago

I agree with the author that you will have more opportunities if your code is online.

After graduating, I spent some time putting my personal and class projects on my website. Later in the summer I got a call from a dev manager who found my website accidentally when searching for programming info. He flew me out for an interview and offered me a job.

The job offer gave me the courage to apply where I really wanted to work: Amazon Web Services. It also sped up the Amazon hiring process.

benatkin2• 16 years ago

> And while places like Github and LinkedIn are important parts of your identity, there's nothing more important than a web site that you control. If you haven't registered your domain today, do it.

There's a huge difference between Github and LinkedIn. You can put up content in any format at <username>.github.com. You get a local backup copy of what you put on their as a side effect of using git to push it. The contents of the repo doesn't belong to Github, so you can post it up anywhere. If GitHub disappeared (they won't) or took down your account for some ridiculous reason (they won't), it wouldn't take that long for search engines to be able to find the new location.

If you can't think of an especially good domain name, I don't think picking one up today is a great idea. That said, I have firstlast.com and I recommend getting it to anyone who commonly goes by that combination and has the firstlast.com for their name unregistered.

Finally, I'm surprised how many hackers are using HN or twitter but aren't active on GitHub. GitHub is at least 10x more valuable IMO. (You have to actively use it, of course, to get the value out of it.)

patio113• 16 years ago

Much love for Github, but if I put my OSS projects there, I do not feel that I get value from them comparable to what I give up by not hosting it on my site. I also think hackers overestimate how many people will read your code (and if it were on your site, you could measure this).

tjr2• 16 years ago

What do you give up by not hosting your projects on your own site?

icey• 16 years ago

It's not very deep data, but you can get traffic numbers per project by going to Graphs -> Traffic from the project page.

(As an example, here are the numbers for Cyclone: http://github.com/fiorix/cyclone/graphs/traffic )

benatkin2• 16 years ago

Your A/Bingo site just isn't as useful to me as a GitHub repo would be. I had to clone your repo to see how active your project is. And what if you should lose interest? No link to the "Network" to see where the patches are going. What about bugs? I don't see a bug tracker. And for measuring how many people read my code, well, I think forks and watches on GitHub are a better gauge of the level of interest than that.

code_duck• 16 years ago

Yeah, so... if you put your code out there as open source, under your own name, a prospective employer might read it. Quite an insight.

tdoggette• 16 years ago

"We've read your code."

"I'm so sorry."

"We've read your code"

Related Stories