That’s what I do. Even my “farting around” projects have a lot of polish. I write everything I do as if it will ship.
I find it establishes great work habits and personal integrity, and my GH ids (I have a personal one, and a couple of org ones) make outstanding portfolios[0].
Not to worry, though. My experience, is that potential employers never look at at GH portfolios. Instead, they rely on leetcode tests to evaluate applicants.
I would never do that in a work context, because the environment there is so different, but it's often the right trade-off for things I'm doing for fun.
(And I still make all the code open source because, well, it might be useful to someone even in the state it's in)
I do a lot of self-discipline "tricks," in order to enforce a certain habitual workflow, and this is one of them.
Many folks get far more done than I do, using very different techniques. I just enjoy the process and the Craft, as much as I do the end result.
One significant advantage, for me, is that I never have to worry about cleaning the house before the boss comes over for tea.
I'd liken it to an artist's sketchbook. If every piece is required to have the appearance of a master work, lest you be judged by it, then the sketches must remain private or else be destroyed (which they often were). But the masterpieces don't jump to the canvas without sketches. Forgo one, forgo the other. And an artist's sketches often have an elegance that's lost in the translation to a finished piece. I see similar parallels in the rough line art for animation, and certainly in an architect's studies. Not all of it is destined to be finished, either, but such work is often prized regardless.
So why (aside from fearing for our careers) should we be afraid to share?
Some code is inherently low-stakes. Some code will only ever be useful, even to the public, for a few months. Sometimes I just want to express an idea, where the proof of concept matters far more than making something shippable, which might imply strapping it down to a particular platform or ecosystem where no one outside those walls is likely to see it.
Even on the job, there's a time and place for the quick & dirty script, where anything more would be an over-engineered waste of time.
Back to the artist analogy, the best advice for maintaining a good portfolio is edit, edit, edit. Constantly be looking to remove work, leaving only your best, as you'll be judged by the worst. Does that model really work for GitHub? If everyone started withdrawing work they were no longer satisfied with, we'd all be worse off, if not actively harmed. So that's where I believe my artist analogy ought to end.
I used to have a big Strathmore sketchbook, that I took with me, everywhere, and, whenever I had the time, I would practice in it. I have old photos of me, with it. I was fairly scruffy-looking [still are -Ed.], and the sketchbook was sort of my "brand." My classmates used to call me "Puff," because I liked drawing dragons.
It got to the point, where even my rough sketches would be as good as finished works.
The same goes with my code. For example, when I start writing code, I habitually add a headerdoc comment, almost immediately. I write about that here: https://littlegreenviper.com/miscellany/leaving-a-legacy/
I work surprisingly quickly. I can generally spin up a full-fat native swift app, App Store-ready, in a couple of days. I do that frequently for my test harnesses (but I prefer taking more time, for the apps I actually plan to release).
I never really warmed to Boris Valleho's work (he used to hang in a gallery that I had work in, and I met him), but I have to admit, that guy can draw.
Look up his sketches. He used to make a lot of money, selling them, so there's a lot of them out there. The gallery that I mentioned, had a big rack of his castoffs, selling for hundreds of dollars. They sold like hotcakes. He was that gallery's star (I, on the other hand, was chopped liver).
Here's a few of his marketed drawings, but his sketches are almost as good: https://www.borisjulie.com/product-category/prints/boris-pri...
Hah, I feel like I understand more where you're coming from with that. I was the opposite, seeking to get my finished works to feel more like my rough sketches.
> I never really warmed to Boris Valleho's work (he used to hang in a gallery that I had work in, and I met him), but I have to admit, that guy can draw.
That he can draw is undeniable indeed. There are a few artists whose sketch work reaches that level of refinement almost immediately. Others get there after years of study and practice. Still others don't see that at as a goal at all for that stage of their process, and others still would see it as an antithesis to what they're after. Looking at Valleho's finished work, I can at least understand how his sketches are in service to that sort of end state.
Compare, perhaps, to some Rennaisance-era sketches. Typically far rougher compared to the finished works, but hardly less impressive. I'd suggest there's a great difference in what they were interested in: matters of anatomy, gesture, and composition. Of course, they were also inventing and rediscovering knowledge that modern artists have far easier access to. There's an interesting dichotomy in that some destroyed their sketch work, while others had far less interest in actually finishing anything.
I've forgotten an appalling degree of art history, so I can't readily name names, but as far as finished works go, I had a fondness for painters using relatively minimalist brush strokes, with each application of paint exactly the right color in exactly the right place.
I prefer art to be a lot “rougher” than Valleho’s work, but had a difficult time, doing it, myself; which was one factor in my eventual retreat from art.