1. Some links on the resume (github, portfolio, linkedIn) return 404 or access denied. This is suprisingly common.
2. Little facts / actual performance data, and over use of words such as "passionate", "strong", "self-motivated", "success", "thrive", etc when describing themselves in the resume.
3. Changing jobs very frequently and no consistent theme in jobs, say 5 jobs in 5 years, one in A.I., one in e-commerce, one in gaming, without specific pursuit of interest.
4. Have a big, long "technology used" for a project. For example, "technology used" in a project includes "Python, Java, Javascript, HTML, CSS, jQuery, SQL, C#, Django, Messaging, C, Bash.."
5. Too specific on trivial details in a large project, such as "work on JSON network request and return error codes to frontend".
6. When sending your document, try sending a PDF but not a .docx
> Have a big, long "technology used" for a project. For example, "technology used" in a project includes "Python, Java, Javascript, HTML, CSS, jQuery, SQL, C#, Django, Messaging, C, Bash.."
I've also seen this recommended as a way to get past recruiters in big companies.
I feel we should have two separate resumes. One for the recruiter crapshoot (where we play buzzword bingo) and another for engineers.
> 2. Changing jobs very frequently and no consistent theme in jobs, say 5 jobs in 5 years, one in A.I., one in e-commerce, one in gaming, without specific pursuit of interest.
If my resume contains many short stints, what's the best way to paint this in a positive light? I've already removed the months of my job history so that only years are on there, which makes some of my positions appear longer.
> no consistent theme in jobs, (...) one in e-commerce, one in gaming
Not sure why that's a bad thing. I've done telco, cloud provider, ecommerce, embedded systems. I'm happy with that - it gave me much better experience on a path towards an architect position than any one industry on its own could.
Workaround for #4. List all relevant tech at/near the top of your resume under a section called something like "Skills" or likely a better name than that. Try to be as concise as possible and avoid going too granular (listing just SQL vs TSQL, MYSQL, XYZSQL). I do something similar and avoid listing the tech used for jobs. If I was versed in many stacks/frameworks, I might have a bullet point/mention under each position what stack each company used (Rails, .NET, Django). As a side note to all of this, I believe resumes/CVs should be a single page
> 3. Have a big, long "technology used" for a project. For example, "technology used" in a project includes "Python, Java, Javascript, HTML, CSS, jQuery, SQL, C#, Django, Messaging, C, Bash.."
How exactly is this a red flag? Javascript, HTML, CSS, jQuery, SQL, C#, Messaging would be a typical project for me and there are likely to be integrations with other languages and I usually have some bash scripts for various parts. I wouldn't typically use java and c# in the same project but it wouldn't be the first time either.
I do lots of hiring. Here are some things I watch out for.
- Multiple, short stints at different companies. Sometimes things happen but if you have a track record of jumping from one place to another I am pretty confident you won't stay around very long if I hire you.
- Multiple pages. A long resume is not impressive. Typically it is just annoying because it makes it harder to find key information. It shows a lack of ability to communicate in a concise manner. I have worked for several companies, completed three degrees, have worked in multiple functions, lead a wide variety of teams, and am still able to keep my resume to a single page. If you need more than one page, fine, but if you need several you are doing something wrong. If there are multiple candidates for an opening your resume is going to the bottom of the pile.
- Keyword stuffing. This typically means the candidate is writing their resume for a search engine. They aren't really looking for the right job...just "a" job. It also shows a lack of ability to communicate effectively.
- "Creative Resumes". Don't be cute. Don't use alternate layouts, photos, background colors, interesting fonts, or graphics. It doesn't get you noticed. At least not in the way you want to get noticed. Stand out by being concise and organized. Show you that you can identify the most important aspects of your career and communicate them effectively.
- Buzz words. Be a human and communicate like a human.
- Lack of precision. Don't just say "Improved application speed" say "Improved application throughput by 50%". When you lack precision my conclusion is either a) You are hiding something or b) You don't know how to communicate effectively.
- Objective statements. These aren't a red flag. They are just a waste of space. Nobody looks at them. They clutter the resume and make it longer than it needs to be.
That's good information! One thing I don't really agree with is:
> Keyword stuffing. This typically means the candidate is writing their resume for a search engine.
If you're applying to a larger company, your CV is likely to be imported into their internal system, often semi-automatically. Sometimes the keywords are not for the public search engine, but for the initial HR's sorting.
These are all good points. However, I think these occur because the skillsets in our field don't fit the "traditional" resume outline. We almost need a different, common outline for tech jobs. Instead of listing the company and timeframe, list the projects you worked on over time, what was used (lightly, no word salad), how you contributed, etc. I would be more impressed with the big projects you worked on at a startup than the small contributions made at a Fortune 500.
"Multiple pages" point, definitely agree. Ive been a software dev for over 20 years and my CV is two pages of A4 and I dont expect most people to even read page 2 (hint: most wont).
Resumes should be good enough to get you in the door, no more. The typical recruiter/hr scans a resume for 5 seconds. Two things stick out in a bad way - typos and jumpiness. Anything else is usually forgiven, or subjective based on the person reading it. This is coming from someone who sees anywhere from 10-50 resumes a day.
Does HN have any suggestions for people switching careers into software engineering/development and landing junior/entry-level roles? Such as, what parts to focus on outside of transferable soft skills?
Using myself as an example for people with a similar situation:
I worked as a freelancer in the past as an "Integrated Producer" which is marketing speak for a Product/Project Manager & "Growth Hacker" hybrid. I've touched everything from strategy and video production to creating shell scripts to configure new computers. Most of my experience will be the projects I've been building following tutorials or peer-programming with my mentor through a year-long boot camp intensive that covers front and backend, but also data structures, databases, algorithms, and etc.
So, most of my descriptions will be "created" or "integrated" with a technology. Like right now, I'm beginning to build a closed social network project as a capstone. I'm not going to be able to say "improved performance by X" for example.
I'm also not sure how much to share of my past. I can say things such as: "I've increased revenue by X over Y via email automation for Z." There are of course soft skills like writing documentation or managing X amount of cases (started as a law clerk/paralegal) under 5 managers. I also know that I shouldn't say back in the late 90s and early 00s that I started building websites for clans and guilds of gaming communities as a kid. (The bug has been there awhile.)
In general, anything that is a red flag is probably something I would just clarify in a 20 minute phone screen. Most of the time, what looks like a red flag on a resume has a good explanation. That being said, the two that come to mind that I've seen the most of are:
- Not taking direct ownership of achievements (e.g. I was part of a team that did x). I don't care what your team did, I care what you did even if it's less impressive.
- Recent Coding Bootcamps. Not necessarily a no go, but I've had very mixed results with this one, some good, some bad. This will probably get me to look at what you did prior to software development and evaluate if you are a capable person in general.
I don't have examples that come to mind of "red flags" on resumes that are otherwise reasonable.
I approach resume screening as a way of qualifying a candidate, not disqualifying them. I'm looking for positive signal, not negative. Do they have experience in the domain or technology I care about? Have they worked in teams and environments that would indicate they could succeed here? Are there are any notable successes, or interesting hobbies or side projects that make them stand out? If they clear the bar, I move to a phone screen.
It's not until much later in the hiring process that we start to look for "red flags" that might indicate something is amiss.
Depending on the volume of qualified candidates and number and urgency of roles available, I can dial different stages of the funnel up and down to optimize for efficiency vs. hiring speed (though the bar to get hired remains the same regardless).
- lots of short stints employment. It costs a lot to find, hire and on board someone. Ideally I’d like them to stick around for a while.
- lists of buzzwords without clear descriptions of what they actually did. I don’t care about “fashionable” terms. I wanted heard about concrete things they’ve done.
- poor formatting. If they don’t care enough to make their resume look clean and neat, why would I expect them to care enough to be thorough in other jobs. I don’t care too much about the aesthetic style of the resume as long as it is clear and consistent.
> lots of short stints employment. It costs a lot to find, hire and on board someone. Ideally I’d like them to stick around for a while.
This is a self inflicted problem across all companies. As long as companies are not willing to pay the market salary, people will move elsewhere.
> - poor formatting. If they don’t care enough to make their resume look clean and neat, why would I expect them to care enough to be thorough in other jobs. I don’t care too much about the aesthetic style of the resume as long as it is clear and consistent.
As neat and tidy as the resume is, certain employers are looking for buzzwords. So if those buzzwords aren't on the resume, it gets to meet the circular file.
Staying in these companies would hurt me a lot more in the long term. It's hard to convince the next employer that you're worth hiring when you're out of touch with modern development practices and your relevant experience is limited to personal projects you did after 8h of wading through mountains of spaghetti code.
Last 6 months I have been working on a system which uses SQL stored procedures for everything (including business logic and reinventing parsing of XML and JSON - poorly). Every single time I mention this solution the interviewers raise their eyebrows. Not a single interviewer has expressed any positive feelings about the solution.
Am I really expected to stick along working on such an atrocity just so I could put >1 years of a resume?
I never look too hard for red flags in a resume - the candidate has already spent hours carefully removing them. Interviews are much more interesting in that regard.
I used to hire at a startup. Following are the things I usually looked at. These are not sorted by severity, some are red flags but others are just irrelevant.
* not following instruction in the job advert
* CC resume to many recipients
* weird sender name in email
* compressed resume
* begging for job in the cover letter
* photo
* "career objective"
* personal information
* broken links
* clear lack of personalization in the resume format
Be careful with the "photo" bit. Some parts of the world include photos on resumes as a default, along with age and marital status. I still dislike seeing them on principal, same reason I liked Hired.com's "hide name" option to help remove biases in the resume screening process.
I see a lot of resumes from people who talk a lot about the techs they've used, but talk not at all about what they used them for. I no longer give these people phone screens.
Also, be kind about formatting because HR software is rarely kind to it, but some formatting errors can't be attributed there. The text on the third of someone's four bullet points has extra leading space? They're not going to be able to find why the YAML they wrote doesn't compile.
Some of us do this because we signed a nondisclosure agreement, not because we don't care about the product. As a developer, I would love to talk about the context of my work. It's just that I can't, because my company told me to keep it a secret.
I would consider it more of a red flag if the candidate volunteered too much information about projects on their resume. Let's say you write that you increased revenue by 1%. At some companies you might be able to talk about that. But at many companies, those metrics are extremely sensitive, and putting them on your resume means you're a disloyal employee.
* Lots of typos. One is fine. Too many suggests someone who is poor at English communication. It doesn't matter how good someone is, if they build the wrong thing.
* Generic boring template-ish resume. Usually these guys don't care much for craftsmanship.
* Too much specialization. 80% specialization is fine, just not 100%.
* For startups, a history of only working at big companies. Especially at the management level, where they tend to overspend and frustrate programmers.
* For larger teams, someone who has a history of only working solo. Some of these guys refuse to communicate, attend daily stand ups, or do daily commits.
Any career longer than about five years that has a focus on a single technology or language with no attempt to branch out or learn new things. Especially for those without a comp sci degree.
For example, if your resume says you're a "SharePoint developer" or "Java expert" it's automatically suspect. I've worked with too many people who only know a single thing and are trying to ride that train as far as they can.
Those people have a great first three months if the job is for their exact skill set. But anyone more well-rounded will run circles around them after that.
A related problem is someone never having designed and implemented a substantial project where they decided what to use. Rather, only having added onto or maintained existing projects.
That gets people into the mindset of being a "FOO Developer" rather than a developer, because the presence of FOO seems like a fact of life.
As someone who has just gone through over 100 resumes for a developer position, these are some of my observations.These aren't exactly red-flags per se, merely markers that would give one pause.
- Heavy Java stack experience, with no significant experience in other programming languages. One of the signs of a production programmer with no passion for the craft of programming.
- Huge listing of school projects involving many different technologies. This is a sign of lack of experience, and resume padding. When probed deeper, not many truly understood the tools they were using for their projects.
> One of the signs of a production programmer with no passion for the craft of programming.
More like "one of the signs of a programmer who has other things to do after work". It may just be indicative of that person spending time with his kids, or working in an honorary office that's not IT-related.
Lots of comments here about buzzwords. I get it, without context they are meaningless. I think people tend to do that to try to pass the "recruiter filter". Usually recruiters filter by either searching on linkedin by keywords/companies or when they receive resumes by trying to do pattern matching with their opening roles. (Source: I'm a hiring manager in SF and I've been hiring on/off for the past 5 years. I get the pile of CVs after the recruiter screen phone, which is a filter after the visual filter)
I change jobs all the time because I work on what is interesting or highly paying for as long as it entertains me or makes me a killing.
Startups go bankrupt all the time, and big companies will fire tens of thousands of people at the drop of a hat. Pensions will be canceled, jobs restructured, and bonuses occasionally distributed in lieu of raises.
The company has no loyalty to you, they only want you to make them money -- so why should your goals be any different? It's hilarious of them to ask for that when for 50 years the business schools have been teaching them that people are cogs. Milk them and move on when it becomes boring or someone else has a bigger carrot, since job security no longer exists outside of the government.
If the company had been proven, over decades, not to fire people simply because the profit margin wasn't high enough, I would have more incentive for loyalty. But even then, any new CEO can change everything. Employment is now an adversarial game.
It's your prerogative to move on. It's my prerogative not to end a 3-month search by hiring someone whom it'll take 4 months to get up to speed on our codebase when they'll be gone in 9 months and I'll have to do this all over again.
Interesting replies on changing jobs frequently. Personally, I have only been an engineer for around 3 years, of which I have had fairly valid reasons for leaving each time.
- 8 months in a startup that burned out and failed
- 18 months in a successful startup where the tech side became very stale
- 12 months in an agency where I was required to step up to a management position rather than engineering
- current role @ a company I plan to stay at for at least 2-3 years
Would you suggest that I explain why I left all of these roles on my resume then?
I usually look for some obscure buzzword which I know something about and ask the candidate about it. For example, if he has Foo on his resume I will ask a concrete technical question related to Foo. Oftentimes it turns out the only experience with it he or she has was in a college, years ago. For me, that is an indication that candidate tends to exaggerate his knowledge and whatever else he lists on his resume has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Why ? I've worked on compilers and theoretical programming languages and as such, I have notions of a dozen programming languages. I don't claim to be good/expert on more than 3 though.
But if someone does this on occassion as a hobby, how is it weird to know, or have some projects in 10 or even 20 programming languages ?
Also many projects are programming languages in themselves (Greenspun's 10th law). Tensorflow, most scheduling packages I've seen, prolog, several things I've written ... Once a project grows beyond a certain large size, it tends to become a programming language in itself.
A common red flag for me is: saying you're an 'expert', '10/10', etc in like 5 different technologies. For juniors it's common to overestimate their capabilities, which is okay, but engineers with some years' experience that already claim to have mastered it all: i'll pass on that.
[+] [-] bwang29|8 years ago|reply
2. Little facts / actual performance data, and over use of words such as "passionate", "strong", "self-motivated", "success", "thrive", etc when describing themselves in the resume.
3. Changing jobs very frequently and no consistent theme in jobs, say 5 jobs in 5 years, one in A.I., one in e-commerce, one in gaming, without specific pursuit of interest.
4. Have a big, long "technology used" for a project. For example, "technology used" in a project includes "Python, Java, Javascript, HTML, CSS, jQuery, SQL, C#, Django, Messaging, C, Bash.."
5. Too specific on trivial details in a large project, such as "work on JSON network request and return error codes to frontend".
6. When sending your document, try sending a PDF but not a .docx
[+] [-] warty|8 years ago|reply
I've also seen this recommended as a way to get past recruiters in big companies.
I feel we should have two separate resumes. One for the recruiter crapshoot (where we play buzzword bingo) and another for engineers.
[+] [-] prothrowaway|8 years ago|reply
If my resume contains many short stints, what's the best way to paint this in a positive light? I've already removed the months of my job history so that only years are on there, which makes some of my positions appear longer.
[+] [-] viraptor|8 years ago|reply
Not sure why that's a bad thing. I've done telco, cloud provider, ecommerce, embedded systems. I'm happy with that - it gave me much better experience on a path towards an architect position than any one industry on its own could.
[+] [-] cjoelrun|8 years ago|reply
Is that a suggestion or a red flag?
[+] [-] handbanana|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|8 years ago|reply
How exactly is this a red flag? Javascript, HTML, CSS, jQuery, SQL, C#, Messaging would be a typical project for me and there are likely to be integrations with other languages and I usually have some bash scripts for various parts. I wouldn't typically use java and c# in the same project but it wouldn't be the first time either.
[+] [-] wedmondson|8 years ago|reply
- Multiple, short stints at different companies. Sometimes things happen but if you have a track record of jumping from one place to another I am pretty confident you won't stay around very long if I hire you.
- Multiple pages. A long resume is not impressive. Typically it is just annoying because it makes it harder to find key information. It shows a lack of ability to communicate in a concise manner. I have worked for several companies, completed three degrees, have worked in multiple functions, lead a wide variety of teams, and am still able to keep my resume to a single page. If you need more than one page, fine, but if you need several you are doing something wrong. If there are multiple candidates for an opening your resume is going to the bottom of the pile.
- Keyword stuffing. This typically means the candidate is writing their resume for a search engine. They aren't really looking for the right job...just "a" job. It also shows a lack of ability to communicate effectively.
- "Creative Resumes". Don't be cute. Don't use alternate layouts, photos, background colors, interesting fonts, or graphics. It doesn't get you noticed. At least not in the way you want to get noticed. Stand out by being concise and organized. Show you that you can identify the most important aspects of your career and communicate them effectively.
- Buzz words. Be a human and communicate like a human.
- Lack of precision. Don't just say "Improved application speed" say "Improved application throughput by 50%". When you lack precision my conclusion is either a) You are hiding something or b) You don't know how to communicate effectively.
- Objective statements. These aren't a red flag. They are just a waste of space. Nobody looks at them. They clutter the resume and make it longer than it needs to be.
[+] [-] viraptor|8 years ago|reply
> Keyword stuffing. This typically means the candidate is writing their resume for a search engine.
If you're applying to a larger company, your CV is likely to be imported into their internal system, often semi-automatically. Sometimes the keywords are not for the public search engine, but for the initial HR's sorting.
[+] [-] CodeTheInternet|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fjeuplos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spyckie2|8 years ago|reply
Resumes should be good enough to get you in the door, no more. The typical recruiter/hr scans a resume for 5 seconds. Two things stick out in a bad way - typos and jumpiness. Anything else is usually forgiven, or subjective based on the person reading it. This is coming from someone who sees anywhere from 10-50 resumes a day.
[+] [-] fjeuplos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lgregg|8 years ago|reply
Using myself as an example for people with a similar situation:
I worked as a freelancer in the past as an "Integrated Producer" which is marketing speak for a Product/Project Manager & "Growth Hacker" hybrid. I've touched everything from strategy and video production to creating shell scripts to configure new computers. Most of my experience will be the projects I've been building following tutorials or peer-programming with my mentor through a year-long boot camp intensive that covers front and backend, but also data structures, databases, algorithms, and etc.
So, most of my descriptions will be "created" or "integrated" with a technology. Like right now, I'm beginning to build a closed social network project as a capstone. I'm not going to be able to say "improved performance by X" for example.
I'm also not sure how much to share of my past. I can say things such as: "I've increased revenue by X over Y via email automation for Z." There are of course soft skills like writing documentation or managing X amount of cases (started as a law clerk/paralegal) under 5 managers. I also know that I shouldn't say back in the late 90s and early 00s that I started building websites for clans and guilds of gaming communities as a kid. (The bug has been there awhile.)
[+] [-] bbrunner|8 years ago|reply
- Not taking direct ownership of achievements (e.g. I was part of a team that did x). I don't care what your team did, I care what you did even if it's less impressive.
- Recent Coding Bootcamps. Not necessarily a no go, but I've had very mixed results with this one, some good, some bad. This will probably get me to look at what you did prior to software development and evaluate if you are a capable person in general.
[+] [-] muzani|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] numlocked|8 years ago|reply
I approach resume screening as a way of qualifying a candidate, not disqualifying them. I'm looking for positive signal, not negative. Do they have experience in the domain or technology I care about? Have they worked in teams and environments that would indicate they could succeed here? Are there are any notable successes, or interesting hobbies or side projects that make them stand out? If they clear the bar, I move to a phone screen.
It's not until much later in the hiring process that we start to look for "red flags" that might indicate something is amiss.
Depending on the volume of qualified candidates and number and urgency of roles available, I can dial different stages of the funnel up and down to optimize for efficiency vs. hiring speed (though the bar to get hired remains the same regardless).
[+] [-] matt_the_bass|8 years ago|reply
- lists of buzzwords without clear descriptions of what they actually did. I don’t care about “fashionable” terms. I wanted heard about concrete things they’ve done.
- poor formatting. If they don’t care enough to make their resume look clean and neat, why would I expect them to care enough to be thorough in other jobs. I don’t care too much about the aesthetic style of the resume as long as it is clear and consistent.
[+] [-] bb88|8 years ago|reply
This is a self inflicted problem across all companies. As long as companies are not willing to pay the market salary, people will move elsewhere.
> - poor formatting. If they don’t care enough to make their resume look clean and neat, why would I expect them to care enough to be thorough in other jobs. I don’t care too much about the aesthetic style of the resume as long as it is clear and consistent.
As neat and tidy as the resume is, certain employers are looking for buzzwords. So if those buzzwords aren't on the resume, it gets to meet the circular file.
[+] [-] ManlyBread|8 years ago|reply
Staying in these companies would hurt me a lot more in the long term. It's hard to convince the next employer that you're worth hiring when you're out of touch with modern development practices and your relevant experience is limited to personal projects you did after 8h of wading through mountains of spaghetti code.
Last 6 months I have been working on a system which uses SQL stored procedures for everything (including business logic and reinventing parsing of XML and JSON - poorly). Every single time I mention this solution the interviewers raise their eyebrows. Not a single interviewer has expressed any positive feelings about the solution.
Am I really expected to stick along working on such an atrocity just so I could put >1 years of a resume?
[+] [-] fjeuplos|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whoisjuan|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fisherjeff|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] esalman|8 years ago|reply
* not following instruction in the job advert
* CC resume to many recipients
* weird sender name in email
* compressed resume
* begging for job in the cover letter
* photo
* "career objective"
* personal information
* broken links
* clear lack of personalization in the resume format
* irrelevant background/experience
* inactive github profile (only uploaded projects etc.)
* MS Office skills
* acknowledgement, signature
[+] [-] erichurkman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kstrauser|8 years ago|reply
is interesting to me because that's usually one of the first things I'm asked when interviewing.
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fsp2WFuH|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walrus01|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BurritoAlPastor|8 years ago|reply
Also, be kind about formatting because HR software is rarely kind to it, but some formatting errors can't be attributed there. The text on the third of someone's four bullet points has extra leading space? They're not going to be able to find why the YAML they wrote doesn't compile.
[+] [-] viuadi|8 years ago|reply
I would consider it more of a red flag if the candidate volunteered too much information about projects on their resume. Let's say you write that you increased revenue by 1%. At some companies you might be able to talk about that. But at many companies, those metrics are extremely sensitive, and putting them on your resume means you're a disloyal employee.
[+] [-] muzani|8 years ago|reply
* Generic boring template-ish resume. Usually these guys don't care much for craftsmanship.
* Too much specialization. 80% specialization is fine, just not 100%.
* For startups, a history of only working at big companies. Especially at the management level, where they tend to overspend and frustrate programmers.
* For larger teams, someone who has a history of only working solo. Some of these guys refuse to communicate, attend daily stand ups, or do daily commits.
* Putting a salary history in your resume.
[+] [-] arbie|8 years ago|reply
I thought standardized resumes made it easier for HR systems to parse.
[+] [-] drblast|8 years ago|reply
For example, if your resume says you're a "SharePoint developer" or "Java expert" it's automatically suspect. I've worked with too many people who only know a single thing and are trying to ride that train as far as they can.
Those people have a great first three months if the job is for their exact skill set. But anyone more well-rounded will run circles around them after that.
[+] [-] frou_dh|8 years ago|reply
That gets people into the mindset of being a "FOO Developer" rather than a developer, because the presence of FOO seems like a fact of life.
[+] [-] wenc|8 years ago|reply
- Heavy Java stack experience, with no significant experience in other programming languages. One of the signs of a production programmer with no passion for the craft of programming.
- Huge listing of school projects involving many different technologies. This is a sign of lack of experience, and resume padding. When probed deeper, not many truly understood the tools they were using for their projects.
[+] [-] majewsky|8 years ago|reply
More like "one of the signs of a programmer who has other things to do after work". It may just be indicative of that person spending time with his kids, or working in an honorary office that's not IT-related.
[+] [-] funkaster|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Orthodoxy|8 years ago|reply
I change jobs all the time because I work on what is interesting or highly paying for as long as it entertains me or makes me a killing.
Startups go bankrupt all the time, and big companies will fire tens of thousands of people at the drop of a hat. Pensions will be canceled, jobs restructured, and bonuses occasionally distributed in lieu of raises.
The company has no loyalty to you, they only want you to make them money -- so why should your goals be any different? It's hilarious of them to ask for that when for 50 years the business schools have been teaching them that people are cogs. Milk them and move on when it becomes boring or someone else has a bigger carrot, since job security no longer exists outside of the government.
If the company had been proven, over decades, not to fire people simply because the profit margin wasn't high enough, I would have more incentive for loyalty. But even then, any new CEO can change everything. Employment is now an adversarial game.
[+] [-] cimmanom|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] magoon|8 years ago|reply
Github accounts with recent “my first project” forks.
Gaps in employment.
Buzzwords.
Expert in too many things.
[+] [-] germainelol|8 years ago|reply
- 8 months in a startup that burned out and failed
- 18 months in a successful startup where the tech side became very stale
- 12 months in an agency where I was required to step up to a management position rather than engineering
- current role @ a company I plan to stay at for at least 2-3 years
Would you suggest that I explain why I left all of these roles on my resume then?
[+] [-] vzaliva|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ganashaw|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] candiodari|8 years ago|reply
But if someone does this on occassion as a hobby, how is it weird to know, or have some projects in 10 or even 20 programming languages ?
Also many projects are programming languages in themselves (Greenspun's 10th law). Tensorflow, most scheduling packages I've seen, prolog, several things I've written ... Once a project grows beyond a certain large size, it tends to become a programming language in itself.
[+] [-] janbernhart|8 years ago|reply