Gfrktyl

As other answers have already touched upon this is a route towards being able to provide code samples that a free of any restrictions upon the candidate (no NDAs or anything to worry about).

By far the larger factor however is that companies expect it simply because it's very often the case. Those who go on to become professional software developers often start out as hobbyists and retain the hobby as they grow up. And since people don't generally do hobbies they hate doing (at least that's not exactly Plan A!) and people who enjoy doing what their job entails are less likely to be half-checked out and clock watching all day.

Personally in 15 years of working as a dev, with quite a few of them spent managing and hiring other devs I've never seen any strong indicator that those who have their "own" projects are "better" workers than those who don't.

For every developer who loves writing any code so much that they spend 12 hours a day in the office working on company stuff until the cleaning crew kicks them out there's another who can't wait to get home and work on what they want to be working on rather than whatever it is the company asked them to do that day, and that's not someone who's bringing their A-game in to the office!

Of course the way job hunting works has meant that now many devs do outside projects more for the CV then for the fun. Which of course only re-enforces the "need" to have external projects you can espouse at interview time. Which of course gives you the poor sap behind door #3 - who doesn't really want to be doing personal projects for hours every evening/weekend but fears not getting hired if they don't!

Speaking as a R&D SW engineer who also does SW recruiting and interviewing (and who asks exactly that question)...

1. SW often involves absurd levels of complexity and training. I want to hire someone who is going to be productive for years or decades. If SW is just a stepping stone to get inside the company and then leave for sales (a RL example) then all the time spent training you and all the SW-specific legacy information you have is lost and my time was wasted.




2. Similarly, life is too short to do something you hate (or even don't like), I've seen lots of people burn out after five or ten years.




3. Experience Matters. If you're a Junior in college then you have X amount of exposure from college. If you have been doing this since high school then you have X+Y. If you've been doing this from high school and also do it as a hobby then it's X+Y+Z.




4. The difference in productivity between a good SW person and a bad SW person is like 10x or more. Which you are is hard to tease out during an interview. Classwork is useless to me for this for multiple reasons. Hobbies are often months or years of work (classwork is often weeks) and give a better idea on accomplishments.




5. People like to talk about their hobbies, it's a way to relate and relax.



6. 
   

   I tend to treat all interviews the same, I do a lot of students. Many/most students have horrible resumes. They'll have tons of useful experience in FIRST Robotics Competition and leave it off their resume because they didn't get paid, and instead talk about their minimum wage job mowing lawns or waiting on tables.

   
   
   

   I don't care how much you got paid (my company has money, we can pay you), I care about your useful experience regardless of whether or not you got paid. Students don't get that so I need to ask.

   
   



7. It's a good way to give someone the opportunity to bullshit me... or dazzle me. I'm also in this field, I'll probably know the difference.

Advice: If you like to mental/logic games in your spare time and view SW as that sort of thing, then mention that.

I'm going to re-interpret this question a tiny bit into:

Why is it 'expected' that software developers do continuing education in their spare time?

So, when I re-frame it that way, that makes a whole lot more sense. Most professionals are required to do continuing education. Doctors are an excellent example of this, but they aren't the only ones. Lawyers as well require this sort of extended education.

In fact, software development, is exceptional in that it DOESN'T require continuing education or licensing to be done and if you think about that, that's kind of alarming. The doctor is required to do continuing education, the nurse is required to do it but the software developer that builds all the tools they rely one, doesn't...

So, while it might be the case, that a company is trying to squeeze more work out of an individual, what is really happening is the industry is slowly learning that maybe we need to mandate continuing education.

I'm not alone, Robert C. Martin (Uncle Bob), one of the the authorities in our industry, suggests roughly 20 hours (about 3 minutes into the video) a week MORE of continuing education. So on average you're coding or learning about development about 60 hours a week. For Uncle Bob, this is a prerequisite to being a good programmer. In fact he goes even further and suggests you should learn a new language each year you're a developer.

Software development, is the HEART of the knowledge economy. You cannot be good at it if you're not actively learning and building on your skills and there comes a point where the job you do at the office simply doesn't cover enough for you to expand your skills. So you need to, outside of work, create the conditions for you to sharpen and practice those parts of your skill set that aren't used at work.

Often, the best way to learn is to build things. Hence the push to work on personal projects. But really it all boils down to learning the high level (design pattern, architecture) and low level stuff (generics, languages) and to keep an eye on the industry and grow with it because things move quickly.

My answer is the assumption that these managers and interviewers went to conferences.

I've been to various developer conferences and one of the themes there is community. They push this idea that a solid developer is someone who contributes to their overall product base. In my situation, I went to php conferences and they heavily push people to commit to open source projects. Pushing to commit to the actual php source code base wasn't a top agenda, but pushing into framework and so forth is really a huge agenda they strike up at various talks.

The reason behind this is obvious when you look at their credentials. They're into the framework community so keeping it alive and getting people to use it are big points for them.

On the attending guests side, I think a lot of people take it into heart without regard to the background of the speaker who is presenting this idea. At my last company, we went to several of these conferences and when we came back, it was a big deal that each of us started to contribute to open source projects. They even had their own internal conference pushing the very same idea that a good developer is someone who contributes to open source. It's even on job ads they post out that committing is a huge plus.

So I think that is why it's "expected." The people pushing these frameworks getting the idea out that you should be committing and contributing. It also falls into the old Unix idea of the past. That's how Unix got so popular thanks to open source and community contribution.

It simply happens that software development can be an extremely low cost but rewarding hobby. So it is very common to see developers with their personal projects on the side and that is sometimes seen as the norm.

Another part of the reason is employers want to see proof of skills and asking for code you have written is one way to go about it, a lazy one IMO. Also doing programming on the side means you can be easily convinced to work overtime since you already like it.

I would say you are not missing out by not getting offers just because you cannot show personal projects. Interviews are a two-sided process and you are naturally filtering out companies with cultures that would not fit you, since seems like you want work-life balance.

I agree with the basic points of RibaldEddie's answer, but its loaded with enough negative value judgements that I think it misses the mark.

Some passionate, talented engineers are driven to build and create even when they're not being paid for it. Asking about extracurricular projects is way to probe for that passion and talent by giving the candidate a stage to brag about a project they chose for themselves.

Is extracurricular work required to be a passionate, talented engineer? Of course not. However, those people who work on their own time may look for that same characteristic in others.

I will admit, I am an old timer and attitudes have changed. When I was junior however, this same question would have been asked in an interview as a disqualified, not as a qualified for an applicant. When I was starting out, running side projects on your own time would have been viewed as someone who was more interested in their own goals rather than team and would likely not stay focused in team efforts. The same was viewed at that time for gaming. An additional fear was that if a person poured out 8, 10, 12 hours a day at the office, and then went home and did more then they were a prime candidate for burn-out.

Again, I fully admit times and attitudes have changed, but I also have still never asked an applicant for prepared code samples, and I have never had any requested. I certainly have asked for, and been asked to generate, on the spot short samples that display style. Being old school, it actually caught me off guard when applicants offered git or similar access to samples and such access did not interest me. I always felt I learned far more for talking than claimed ownership of pre-written code.

In general I would be of a mindset similar to what I hear in the OP's question. My free time is to clear my mind from work and refresh it, not engage in more of the same to be honest.

I think you're confusing two aspects of that question. Yes, there is a (sick, imho) fashion for developers who breathe code 24/7. But what you're overlooking is that your contributions on github give a publicly-accessible code sample. And that can be very important to a possible employer. It also talks to your ability to work cooperatively, in a way that's not mandated by your employer. And often throws in a bit of a writing sample as well.

So maybe offer to give a code sample when the question is asked? And do consider contributing something to some public project so that you can give interviewers what they're really after.

Developers that write code their own time, at least in my eyes, are far more likely to be ahead of the curve looking for new/better ways of doing things which they can bring back to work with them and benefit the company.

I guess the tl;dr would be that it's essentially free R&D which any business would be mad to turn down.

In my day job I train software developers, mostly in a less popular technology. When we hire new junior or trainee developers, we ask for a Github or Stack Overflow profile. We make it clear that it's not required to have one though. We hire people with a general STEM background who want to become software developers.

The various reasons that not everyone wants or can have their own side projects, or contribute to open source in a meaningful way have been included several times in the other answers. Time is the main one. Often, that entails family. One has to respect that.

However, seeing that someone junior has something on Github (or Bitbucket or Gitlab or anywhere else) is incredibly useful. It shows me that they really want to become a developer. Just like someone who knows nothing about cooking, but feels it's their calling to become a chef, I believe a young person who wants to become a software developer would naturally be drawn to trying this at home. You would cook at home while looking for that first kitchen job. Of course you would do tutorials at home.

What does it tell you about how serious someone is, or how motivated, when they don't do that? Assume they have a degree in (and I chose this randomly) biology, and they've not written any code at all. But they try to convince you to hire them instead of the 200 other people that applied. The 50-odd software development or computer science grads will all have their coursework on github, but it will mostly be just one commit per project, and massive copy and paste.

But if there are one or two candidates that actually have a proper interest in coding already, before formal training, and they show that off on github, then that makes them stand out. A seasoned developer looking at this code will tell the difference between a project that's done in uni, or just for the CV, or one where actual passion and tinkering went into it. That's the kind of project I want to see. That tells me this person means it.

But if you don't have that because you don't have the time to do it, that's fine. It's just one of the many things I look at, and you can convince me in other ways.

The above was targeted at junior people. I personally do some open source. I have modules in the repository of my language of choice, and I've contributed to many others. I mention this in my CV because it makes me stand out. I like to think that it helps me, but I've noticed that many companies don't care, because often the people in charge of hiring don't know what it means.

I therefore conclude that it is not really required. But it helps. Just like good grades or a prestigious university are not really required, but they help.

I think what makes software development special is that it solves a broad range of everyday problems. Be it modding computer games, customized home automation, the web portal for your hobby-club, or fixing a bug in the open source software you use - there are so many opportunities to use your skills. Those are also very diversified ways to apply your skills - free from many restrictions you have in the professional context.

If I see an application without any personal projects, it makes me a bit skeptical. It means I have a harder time evaluating the skills of the candidate - but I certainly try. For better or worse - having hobby-software-projects is common among software developers. This does of course raise some expectations.

I see a lot of "employers want you to work a thousand hours a week" and think those answers miss the mark.

While there are those employers that want the prospect of "free labor" (assuming you are salary and just work obsessively on one thing).

PASSION!!!

One thing employers want to see is PASSION!

I would ask the same thing if I was a manager hiring a car mechanic - tell me about the cars you've rebuilt.

Or hiring a carpenter - tell me about anything you've built in your free time.

Do you enjoy! doing what you do so much that you do it outside of work?

Your own projects

If you have code you've done outside of work

• It's not hidden behind "agreements" and "owned" by MegaCorp. It's YOUR code and YOU can share it.


• It's extra stuff you've done - and presumably will continue to do. Baring enforceable contracts saying "your spare time code is ours" ("enforceable" because not all locales allow those contracts) - that means that this code is presumably NOT free work for new MegaCorp.

They can't ask to see MegaCorps code. It's not YOUR code to share. I can't count the number of projects that I personally can't show because either I don't have access to it outside of the network or I'm legally barred from sharing it because it is not mine.

End Game

They want to see passion, knowledge, proof. Having publicly accessible projects that you can talk about in depth is covered by "private projects" because you can actually SHARE the base code.

They can see the code, see the ideas (OOP, IoC, chosen algorithms, libraries used, etc). They can hear you describe the code that they can see. They can inquire about choices made. They can actually KNOW you have the knowledge beyond a degree and a job title that doesn't say much.

There are companies that want free work and companies that will abuse the idea that you'll work more... but please don't assume "show me something that you can show me" is ONLY because of that.

Car people can talk about rebuilding an engine in their own garage and carpenters can talk about building the bedroom set that they sleep on at night.

Programmers should be able to similarly talk about - and show - projects they've produced - and projects "outside" of required work are a good source of that knowledge, experience and passion.

It's only expected of you if you are expecting a top-tier job as a programmer. Because the demand outweighs the number of available position, they have the luxury to be picky. And being picky, why wouldn't you want someone who loves code so much that he also code in his spare time. Meaning that he also challenges himself to new things and is basically learning faster and is more current in knowledge than most.

This is the reason.. Employers wants you to work more than 40 or 45 hours per week so if you can't spent more time in your work they want to know if you are able to do that out of work time. There is a simple example by Elon Musk (Tesla CEO): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/27/elon-musk-workers-should-put-80-hours-week-change-world/

Good issue !

My answer is not all what I think about the matter, but rather limited this site's topic.

There are companies who prefer their developer to have hobby projects. There are companies which prefer they not (yes there are).

I think you should anyway avoid companies which are too insisting on this matter to either direction. After all, it's you own business how do you spend your spare time.

Otherwise, I think you should be ok if you just say that you do not do hobby programming. Just make you you stay respectful to those who chooses to do hobby programming.

There's several possible reasons why companies might ask about personal projects, and prefer candidates with them.

• I work with mostly small businesses. Its a very creative, entrepreneurial atmosphere. Are you creative and entrepreneurial? If you are, you have side projects and and actually create things. This might not only be programming related, but there's a good chance it will be.




• Can you spec out and actually finish a project (or reach a goal post) on your own? That is, can you take initiative and actually deliver?




• Breadth of experience. I can't tell you the number of times things I learned on a side project that was completely unrelated to a work project helped that work project. Having exposure to a wide variety of technologies and industries can be very beneficial. Are you the kind of person that can bring out of (our) box thinking?

That said, its been my experience that just as many companies don't want candidates who spend a lot of time on their own projects, as do.

Many questions about why interviewers ask a certain thing can be answered by recalling that almost all job interviews are tournaments, not qualifications. What do I mean by that?

• In a qualification, a bunch of people are judged on their qualities to see if they make the cut or not. Depending on who enters, they may all pass, or none of them may pass. All those who pass are "good enough" in the sense of meeting the requirements set for qualifying.


• In a tournament, a number of people compete, but there is only one champion. Just because he is a champion doesn't mean he's good. Perhaps everyone else who entered is a loser. And just because you're good doesn't mean you will win - maybe there's another guy who entered who is also really good. The one who wins the tournament is "the best".

Qualifications result in an unknown number of people passing, whereas when companies try to hire, their goal is usually to fill a given number of positions. Even if you do get resumes from 5 really good engineers, if you're only looking to fill one position it makes no sense to hire them all. After all, you only need one. Therefore, in job applications, people are ranked to see who is the best, and many important questions are to get data on which to rank them.

Interviewers for software jobs ask about your hobby projects for the simple fact that a lot of people who apply to such jobs do have hobby projects, and it seems like an important basis for comparison. If you had two otherwise identical candidates, but one had an extensive github portfolio in addition, does that not make him better suited than the other? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that it would be silly not to ask such a thing, thus many people do. Just the asking does not necessarily mean that you are expected to have them, in the sense that you will be instantly disqualified just for not having them. Usually hiring decisions are holistic. But it is expected in the sense that the hirers expect that many applicants will have their own hobby projects, so they ask everyone to make sure they have a chance of bringing this up.

Now of course when you find out something is a significant factor in your career success which you had ignored up to now, it is not a happy occasion. One naturally wishes to construct an elegant argument about how it shouldn't matter anyway, tell the world about it, and bask in the pride of having argued away an uncomfortable hoop instead of just jumping through it. Alas, such is not the way of building a career. It is very unlikely that you will be able to convince your prospective employer to stop caring about hobby projects at the interview stage (they probably already had a system in mind for filling that opening and will be very resistant to making changes when they've already started interviewing). You could seek out the ones that don't ask about it, or regard them negatively, but they will be a minority since this sort of thinking is very common in software.

But if you want some possible reasons why it's a good thing for an applicant to have a portfolio of personal projects:

• It shows they're truly passionate about their work since they've done it even when not paid


• It lets them show off skills they have despite not having had worked in a position that employs them (say you know Haskell but no employer let you use it)


• Many consider academic degrees, or even past experience, an unreliable measure of programming skill so projects give them a better idea of what your work is like


• Having a hobby may make you a cool, original person in their eyes who would fit better socially

These don't necessarily have to be true, it's enough that the interviewer believes them. Finding the best applicant for a job is ultimately a subjective thing, not an exact science. Hobby projects are also not a universally interesting, or even positive thing to have as an applicant: Some think that doing skilled work without pay cheapens the value of your skill, some think that it shows you're distracted or too ambitious, some may have company policy forbidding using it as a criterion for whatever reason and so on. Although I would say that on average, in the software field, you are probably slightly better off if you have a good portfolio of personal projects than not.

You could say ask how it came to be that most people even have a noteworthy portfolio such that interviewers bother asking. That's easy: Software is very democratic in that anyone with a computer can write programs (at least in theory...), you do not need any special equipment or infrastructure to do it (actually, you don't even need the computer, strictly speaking). So most people interested in the profession end up developing on their own, before getting a job. But it is not the only profession in which this is the case. Artists, musicians, photographers, writers and many other such professionals tend to have extensive portfolio they made in their own time, and they do get asked about them.

"is that I often get asked whether I have any of my own projects that I can talk about..."

I have never asked anyone this (and certainly never been asked it).

Could it be that you're thinking of your experience more when you were an absolute beginner (ie, at a time when you did not have any actual products that you have worked on, to discuss).

"why does it seem to be accepted that software developers are expected to be working on [hobbyist crap] "

Maybe it is a regional thing, but I don't see that as accepted or usual.

Who cares about hobbyist stuff?

Maybe it's a quirk of your particular field, OP?

I think the good news is, if you've had this experience it's "just bad luck". I would forget about it.