What's more, it doesn't even signal that the individual in question is better at their job than someone that puts in "only" 40 hours. I've worked with a good number of people who can talk big-talk when it comes to programming, have a countless innovative side-projects and yet can't deliver anything meaningful at work by the deadline. Some of them had very impressive github accounts and worked 10+ hours a day, but were consistently behind everyone else in the quality of their output.
I think it's a shame if someone quits the profession because they think they need to keep up with people who might or might not be delivering actual business value.
I don't now, but I certainly did in the beginning of my career. I was even pressured to as a junior developer-- I apparently wasn't learning the new framework fast enough and they suggested I study at home.
For the most part I work rather normal hours now-- but occasionally I branch out and build stuff in my free time. I agree that it's not necessary and I could maintain my normal job in development without it. But I've also been able to parlay my hobby coding into new positions or profitable side work. It has given me more confidence and freedom.
Plenty of my co-workers don't build things on their own time. But as such I'm much more likely to be given the more interesting and challenging projects. I also likely have better job security. There are lots of benefits to being one of the crazy ones building fiber networks in your basement.
Our field rapidly evolves. If I don't spend at least 10-20 hours a week improving my skills and experience new tech, I can find myself obsolete in 5 years time.
I'd prefer to spend it learning AI or Ethereum...those are both rabbit holes in and of themselves. How many hours to become experts in either? 1000-2000?
You don't have to mainly identify as a profession in order to practice it, and I suspect as we improve work life balance, we wont in general.