
I just need a programmer - bgray
http://www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/blog/archives/monthly/2010-12.html#e2010-12-01T15_45_40.htm
======
Kilimanjaro
So, you are looking for a programmer? Well, I am one. A goddamn good one. I
can make a computer cry twisting its inner wires with just my thought. And I
happen to be looking for a partner too.

Are you a solid-brass-balls entrepreneur not afraid of rasing money? Can you
knock down every tabloid's door to get our story told? Can you set up
appointments across the globe with people richer than god? Can you bring a
thousand customers just the first month and two thousands more the next?

I can code the whole fucking app in one month and get version two ready the
next month if that is what you need. See? That's execution, my friend. I can
code apps blindfolded and with my hands tied. Can you do business like that? I
don't want dreamers, I want doers.

Now, stop wasting my time with an idea, I have had plenty every day of my life
since I started programming and I have spent twenty years perfectioning my
skills. I know what I can do.

So, I ask you again, what are your business skills? Besides having an idea?

~~~
afterburner
I'm going to keep this on file if the situation ever comes up again... I
couldn't quite articulate the sentiment then. Although it might burn bridges.

~~~
dasil003
To be Machiavellian about it, it's worth burning bridges with the two-bit
hacks if it furthers your reputation as a truly badass developer.

~~~
run4yourlives
Assuming you can evaluate "two-bit hacks" in a way that is accurate enough
that you don't create false positives.

One burnt bridge that turns out to be a major success later on, even if they
are a hack, actually, can kill you.

The parable of the Lion and the Mouse should always be heeded.

~~~
dasil003
No that's not the assumption. The assumption is you can increase your
reputation with a group of people who matter more, thus opening more doors on
average. No one can see all ends, you just work the angles you have.

~~~
run4yourlives
It's not a zero-sum game though. You can be professional and ethical to all
persons you have business dealings with, it just usually means saving your
breath/actions for things that are more important. :-)

------
raganwald
The trouble with thinking "I have magic beans, I just need water!" is that you
don't understand water. You don't know good water from bad. You don't really
know how much water to use and when. You can't watch the beans grow and adjust
your watering schedule because you think it's all about the beans. You don't
_get_ water.

That's my problem with "I just need a programmer" entrepreneurs. I can work
out how to get paid, but I can't work out how to make them understand software
well enough to make good business decisions about a software company.

(The same thing is true of "I just need a salesperson," of course.)

~~~
sudont
More like regular beans and magic water.

~~~
raganwald
Are you, by any chance, an expert in fluid dynamics?

~~~
sudont
Sorry, no. I'm a gardener, so I'm more about the soil...

Why do you ask?

~~~
dj_axl
As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the
garden.

------
porter
It seems funny to me that so many people want to be software entrepreneurs,
but refuse to learn about software.

Six months ago I quit my banking job of five years to learn how to program. I
am taking discrete math, data structures & algorithms, and computer
organization courses as a non-degree student. I am also up to speed with
python/django/HTML/CSS/JS, or at least I know them well enough to hack a
prototype together.

Programming is overwhelming at first, but seriously, it's not that hard to
learn enough to test out your ideas.

~~~
stevejobs
Most people are good at what they're good at, so it makes no sense for them to
learn something they have little interest or skill in. The typical request
from a non-tech guy is not in implementing a hard engineering problem like
database management or search query structure, but in putting together what is
typically a glorified e-commerce site or social site (digg etc).

~~~
jimbokun
Just happened to read Forbes write up on Reed Hastings (Netflix) as their CEO
of the year. Turns out he has an M.S. C.S. from Stanford.

Jobs did some programming and soldering logic boards. Gates wrote a BASIC
interpreter with Paul Allen. Zuckerberg was in Harvard C.S., I believe, and
wrote the first implementation of Facebook himself. Bezos has a B.S. in C.S.
and Electrical Engineering. Larry, Sergey, Jerry Yang all Stanford C.S. grad
school drop outs.

So, I am having a hard time coming up with a spectacularly successful software
company where the founders "just needed a programmer."

~~~
lian
Well, Apple could be a counterpoint if we're just talking about current CEOs.
Steve Jobs has never been revered for his electronics skills, and it seems he
kind of snuck in the back door in early jobs at Atari and HP. His specialty
was always sales, whether selling Apple computers or selling himself.

That said, if we're talking "founders," Steve Wozniak was built right in, and
he's the computer guru we're looking for. Just giving the computational credit
where it's due, on this one.

~~~
bad_user
Steve had one competitive advantage: best friending Steve fucking Wozniak.

You know how that happened? They shared common interests, including knowledge
of electronics, pulling pranks and passion for computers (yes, Jobs was
technically competent enough).

And if I know one thing about %99.9999 of would-be entrepreneurs: they aren't
best friends with someone like Wozniak.

~~~
lian
So...we agree. My point is that where some of the other people mentioned had
their masters degrees in CS, Jobs seems to have been more of a business-
inclined hobbyist who really liked and could competently work with computers.
I concur that his biggest strength as far as computer science went was that he
happened to pal around and co-found a company with someone who was the most
badass hobbyist in town.

~~~
jimbokun
Being friends with woz and hanging out at the homebrew club is a probably
better education in computing than any degree.

------
geebee
This is a good post. I'd take it one step farther. To say the idea is nothing
without the execution still (kind of) suggests that they are different things.
I think that where it comes to software, the execution _is_ the idea.

I wouldn't quite claim that ideas aren't worth much. I know a few academics,
and they are rightly careful about sharing their ideas before they get far
enough with the implementation (lab work, publications) to ensure that they
will be credited. If I'm going to agree that "idea stealing" is a problem,
then I'm committed to agreeing that raw ideas do have some value.

Software can be like this, but in general, I think most software "ideas" are
more similar to an idea for a novel, painting, or screenplay than a
blockbuster pharmaceutical drug. Give two programmers the same "idea", and
you'll end up with two different products - maybe almost as different as two
different novels. Hell, give two writers or programmers the same detailed
_outline_ , and you'll probably end up with two different outcomes.

When I was in college, "business types" walked through shopping malls and
appended "dot com" to what they saw, and thought they had a valuable idea.
Now, people tend to prepend "social networking for" or "wireless". "Social
networking - for surfers! for moms!"

Now one warning - however much I may feel this way, the law isn't necessarily
on my side. IANAL and everything, but some IP lawyers came to talk to a
startup I worked at once to tell us about how important it is to shut the fuck
up, and evidently simply being "the programmer" doesn't mean you have to be
included on a patent. So to that extent, the law does recognize a separation
between idea and implementation.

~~~
vog
_> where it comes to software, the execution is the idea._

I strongly disagree with that. Although ideas and execution (i.e. software)
are both "nothing more" than information, they don't have much in common.
Also, ideas are refined as well as changed during execution - that is, our
perception of the big picture changes as we get more information about the
details.

 _> Give two programmers the same "idea", and you'll end up with two different
products_

I fully agree with that. BTW, this somewhat contradicts the first statement.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You quote:

>Give two programmers the same "idea", and you'll end up with two different
products

Do you or the parent have a citation?

I used to work in patents, the number of independent recurrences of the same
idea in a particular field is often pretty high. All truck drivers appear to
think of digital number plates for example.

Exact details may differ but I'd expect the majority of programmers to come up
with a lot of crossover if implementing a well-defined idea.

It depends on what you mean by idea of course - is it "we'll make a game" or
is it "we'll introduce digital scoring to board games" or "we'll allow
bartering in our MMORPG".

------
sgentle
I see a lot of "just learn to program" around here, and I think it's all a bit
glib and far from reality.

Firstly, programming is _hard_. It's not the sort of thing you pick up in a
few weeks. Hell, there are people who manage to make it through a CS degree
and several years in industry without actually knowing what they're doing.
What makes you think it's a valuable use of your time to do something mediocre
that other people have spent much of their lives learning to do well?

Secondly, good programming doesn't make a good business. It's as important (I
would even say more important) to have a solid revenue model. Who are your
customers? Why are they buying? How can you get more? These are questions many
programmers wouldn't want to touch with a barge pole. Don't waste that
symbiosis.

To me, the real message is that ideas aren't worth shit. Implementation is
king. It seems like a lot of people (angry ex-startup programmers?) confuse
real business people (who can contribute a lot to a team in sales & biz dev)
with useless "ideas guys". If you're one of those then, y'know, stop it. You
should go learn an actual skill (programming or otherwise) that will allow you
to contribute to the idea's realisation.

(I should clarify, though, that I think anyone working in software should
learn _about_ programming. But encouraging business guys to write their own
code is like encouraging programmers to draw their own art.)

~~~
Travis
Is it that coders confused the good business guys with the charlatans, or is
it that it's difficult to tell them apart?

Much like business guys can't tell good coders from bad without knowing about
programming (100% agreement there), it's just as important for programmers to
know about business (sales cycles, product dev, customer service, etc.)

~~~
r0s
You have a good point, but still, the difference between learning to "program"
and making a working product can be decades.

This hits home for me, struggling to self-learn desktop programming, pushing
back expected prototype dates further and further.

~~~
Travis
I expect that programming for the desktop is more difficult than web stuff. I
do web stuff only, but still have the perspective to kind of realize the
spectrum of difficulty generally inherent to different types of programming.

That said, there is also a spectrum of business difficulty. Running a
laundromat is easier than running a startup, but I don't know enough about the
business side to quantify that difference.

I view it as a sister to the Dunning Kroger effect. I don't know enough about
business to grasp the difficulties in each problem, simply because I don't
know what types of difficulties exist in business (at least, not as well as in
programming).

------
angrycoder
As someone who has spent most of his career at a consultancy, people like this
put food on my table.

The ones who end up being successful understand that they need to learn just
as much about the process of software development and usability as we need to
learn about their vertical. They understand that a good product is a result of
give and take with your developers and analysts.

The ones who fail are the type A alpha dogs who just want you to do whatever
they say because they are paying you a crap load of money per hour. They
generally have the right mindset for an entrepreneur, they are trying to solve
a problem they have. A couple of common problems are:

1) Everyone in their vertical may have this problem, but they assume everyone
does business the same way that they do and follows the same process. They
weigh down their system with too many requirements and business rules. As a
result, they bury the one or two useful nuggets and end up with a product that
is only suited to them.

2) They want to make some monolithic end to end solution right out the gate.
They want to jump straight to being a WalMart sized franchise when they need
to start as a mom and pop corner store (aka a MVP).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I too have a consultancy, I too see bright young people at the door with the
same issues.

I tell them "Think of the skinniest chicken you can possibly make, that will
still get up and walk, and make that first". They won't, or at least they
don't. They cannot imagine their baby without All the bells and whistles.

All I can do is educate them on the process, help with archicture, and maybe
(but not always) help out with the coding - I charge a lot and they generally
shop the rest out.

------
yesno
This is a very unfortunate situation in our industry.

BizDev guy says he needs one of them "programmers" who can code and don't talk
back to him. BizDev guy knew almost nothing about software development or the
"properties of a system software". Business didn't work out because the
software is flacky. BizDev guy blames them "programmers" when changes are
hard, software is super buggy.

BizDev thinks he's awesome cause he has 3 things: Money, Network and Idea.
Everybody should bow down to Money.

Programmers became hateful against the BizDev guy. They say "I can do this by
myself, screw you guys". Then programmers try to re-create their ideal world:
solving cool problems, working with cool gadgets, in a cool office
environment. Some said programmers have to work in a close office, alone
_GASP_. Of course these silos came up with a chunk of code that probably hard
to be integrated. Them programmers try to hire BizDev guy cause now the VCs
are on their butt asking how money could be made. Of course it'll be hard for
them programmers to hire BizDev since they have a very strong bias. They
probably ended up hiring Sales Engineer instead of bright BizDev.

Programmers think they're awesome cause they have 3 things: Knowledge, Skill
and Idea. Knowledge is everything they say.

This... is why 9 out of 10 startups failed. That 1 startup that succeed? the
BizDev guy has an MBA and BS in CS or EE. The Programmers? they took minor in
economics/commerce or accounting.

------
nhangen
I'm one of these guys.

Why didn't I learn to program? I had maybe an hour/day in between my job and
my side hustle, and I just didn't have enough time to get through the problems
in order to be a good programmer.

Since then, I've found that watching projects come to life, while learning on
the side, has made it much easier to pick up Objective C, Javascript, Ruby,
etc. Of course, I didn't expect programmers to work for free...that would be
ridiculous.

That being said, it's kind of like learning HTML or CSS, unless you're doing
it actively, full-time, for months or even years, it's going to take some time
to feel like you know what you're doing.

Lastly, there are so many languages. There's Ruby, Python, PHP, C and its
variants, etc. Do you learn web languages or something like Objective C?

Those are some of the things that went through my mind when I started.

~~~
sudont
Luckily the base thinking skills transfer over, so learning how to program in
Java/C means that the student now knows how to _program_ irregardless of the
language. Picking up a new language is less like learning a new dialect and
more like learning the local slang and customs.

Except for MUMPS. Fuck that shit.

~~~
adacosta
regardless

~~~
sudont
Ssssh, you prescriptivist!

------
CoachRufus87
that was me 2 years ago. I considered elance (couldn't afford it), recruited 1
cs buddy I went to high school with (he was busy doing his own things), so I
figured I had no choice but to learn to program. I found HN, which introduced
me to Michael Hartl's Ruby on Rails Tutorial, and I just launched my first
app: <http://www.fanscription.com> Oh, and I'm an Econ/Business Major.

"Just Do It" -Nike

~~~
ericlavigne
I love your front page.

Have you gotten much response from businesses that want to use your service?
How are you advertising?

~~~
CoachRufus87
Thanks! I launched the site just a week ago and have been in talks with a few
local businesses who want to sign up. As far as advertising goes, I'm starting
locally here in Austin and hope to gradually spread out over time. I love the
fact that I'm learning/making mistakes/improving as a make progress.

------
fbnt
I think the majority of developers/startup founders have no problems sharing
their idea or plan before launch date. They talk about it to attract new
prospective clients, collaborators, create interest and so on. Very few
operates in stealth mode nowadays.

So when you freely share your idea before launching the product you already
consider the value of the idea alone basically zero, while you think the value
resides all in your execution.

That's why I believe that if you have an idea you'd better be an exacutor or a
sales person, otherwise there no or little value in your contribution. There's
no shortage of ideas.

------
_delirium
I somewhat but not entirely agree with this. I definitely agree in the case he
discusses: there are way too many people with _vague_ ideas who "just need a
programmer". I don't think the root problem is that implementation is the
source of all value, though. In their case, they don't understand how to
develop computational ideas in a useful way at all. It's not the lack of C++
knowledge or Ruby knowledge, but the lack of a general understanding of
computational thinking.

A computationally-literate idea that's well developed, on the other hand, can
be very valuable, and can account for probably 90% of the interestingness of
idea+implementation. Not always: sometimes you find really major things in the
implementation that cause you to rethink the idea. But there are many times
that I've implemented a theoretical idea myself and not really learned
anything in doing so. You read a paper, or even a blog post, which explains an
idea in detail, motivates why the author developed it, gives a broad sketch of
how you'd implement it, etc., etc., but the author hasn't actually implemented
it. Then I implement it myself. Have _I_ provided the majority of the value,
because I'm the first person with working code? Not really; in many cases the
implementation was a pretty straightforward translation of the idea into code.

A computationally literate and well-developed idea is arguably something close
to "execution", but not quite the nuts-and-bolts variety. To use a physics
analogy, my ideas on space travel are not very well developed or valuable, but
Freeman Dyson's _are_ valuable, even though he's implemented his ideas to the
same extent I have: neither one of us has ever attempted to build spaceships.
He's a pure idea-person, but his ideas are developed quite fully, so readers
can understand what he proposed and why, what its pros and cons might be, what
possible pitfalls await, what the broad outlines of possible fixes for those
pitfalls might be (even if they depend on materials or other things not
currently available), etc.

I'd say the same of people even further into idea-land, like Isaac Asimov, who
provided valuable ideas with nothing close to an implementation. The trick imo
is that most ideas either just aren't novel enough to be interesting, or
aren't sufficiently well developed and explained to provide value to a reader.

~~~
timwiseman
I must respectfully beg to differ on your interpretation. The way your
describe your "computationally literate and well-developed idea " is not at
all what most people consider an idea. It is pseudo-code, which really is the
vast majority of the implementation.

Since I started using Python I no longer bother with pseudo-code at all, but
when I was using Java I considered a complete pseudo-code 90% of the
implementation and translating into Java to only be the last 10%. You touch on
this by saying that its "close to "execution"", but I think you do not go
nearly far enough. It is most of the way to execution.

To put it another way, I think having an idea is like standing at a starting
line for a race. You havne't done anything except contemplating running the
actual race yet. Having a fully developped algorithm in pseudo-code (possibly
along with a thorough UI concept) is like passing the last mile marker. You
haven't finished the execution yet, but you have gone a very long way towards
it...

~~~
danenania
Good post, but in my experience full mockups and pseudo-code is still not
close to 90% of the final product unless I'm doing something that is trivial
for me. There is just too much complexity that emerges in places which are
difficult-to-impossible to anticipate until I've dug into code and physically
tested the ideas I've laid out in pseudo-code. I'd probably put the number
more in the range of 25-50% depending on the scope of the project.

Of course for simpler projects or in domains where the developer is extremely
experienced and can anticipate every hiccup that might occur, that number
could go much higher, but I don't think this is usually the case in the wild.

~~~
_delirium
I definitely agree that in terms of _effort expended_ implementation is almost
always >=50%, but effort can be of various types. Sometimes when I've
implemented ideas, the implementation took 90% of the time, but it was
basically straightforward code-slinging, so I wouldn't credit it with more
than 10% or so of the total _intellectual_ effort expended on the project.
Other times, important stuff does come up when implementing that sheds new
light on the idea (or shows that it wasn't as fully developed as I initially
thought).

When I'm implementing someone else's paper, a heuristic I use is something
like: did I "just" implement this paper, or did I learn important things while
implementing it that aren't actually mentioned in the paper, and which I
should probably write up somewhere for other people's benefit? Sometimes the
answer is "just implemented" even if the implementation took a long time and
was hairy.

------
RoyG
This isn't just a programming issue; it reminded me of my younger days as a
freelance designer, where I would meet with many prospective entrepreneurs who
would tell me something like 'I'm very good at design, I just need somebody to
work the software.'

Invariably, there is more to both programming and design than meets the eye.
While learning can help obviate this problem it's not a cure-all; it is also
important to learn how to a.) prioritize and simplify when your reach exceeds
your grasp and b.) have realistic expectations for outcomes vs. budget.

It's a good idea to learn both, but again, the execution is more problematic.

------
Ataraxy
I am a marketer. I am also fairly technical and think that I have a firm
understanding of how things work but lack the capabilities/aptitude to
properly code them. I managed to cobble together a functional prototype of
some analytics software we needed. It was fine until it became quickly
apparent that my coding skills suck despite a more or less understanding of it
all. We had to hire a coder to write it all from scratch to be able to handle
hundreds of thousands clicks per day. It has been bumpy but it was still the
right decision in order to allow our business to grow.

My point is, even if you want something bad enough that you will sit there for
a couple of weeks straight to cobble your vision together, nothing beats
having it done by a professional that understands what they are doing.

I wish still we had a full time developer and ui designer available to us to
make my much grander/awesome/profitable vision a reality. In time we will...

~~~
anamax
> I managed to cobble together a functional prototype of some analytics
> software we needed. It was fine until

The key point is that you had something complete, it wasn't a vague idea.

In some sense, your prototype was "a product". It wasn't adequate in many
ways.

I mention product because the "suits" are offering "I need someone to improve
my product" terms while expecting "I need someone to build a product from my
idea".

There's a huge gap between "a decent social site" and the minimal facebook,
and market research and bizdev don't address that gap.

------
scrrr
Funny, I have the opposite problem. I need a biz-guy!

~~~
efsavage
Yeah, I think the programmer version of this is "I've got a great
program/site, I just need someone to sell it!".

~~~
balakk
You mean programmers will actually admit they can't do everything? Fantasy.

------
ssskai
Question: If I were a "BizDev" guy and wanted to create a website that has
similar functionalities as, say, Groupon or PayPal (I understand they're
different), what languages would be best to learn?

I would suspect some front-end GUI paired with a back-end database system
would be needed, but what languages specifically would be best?

As an entrepreneur with a degree in Mech. Eng. and Entrp., and I have done
programming in MATLAB, some VBA, and some HTML. So I understand the logic
behind programs, but don't necessarily know all the languages.

Any and all suggestions are most welcomed!

~~~
cot6mur3
You need a templating + biz logic language, and a database. The usual starters
for non-purists are PHP and MySQL. Also, most front-ends use JavaScript these
days, often with a helper JavaScript library like JQuery.

Myself, I'm more of a Python (language) + PostgreSQL (database) person, but
they may take a little longer to get up to speed with.

------
wccrawford
Wait, so they're surprised that they can't find students willing to work hard
in return for some vague hope of money in the future?

Wow. Color me shocked. /sarcasm

And the advice that they could just learn programming themselves? I don't
think anyone ever says 'I need X, but don't know anything about it myself.
I'll just learn it.' (At least, nobody that thinks logically.) It doesn't work
that way. (Okay, granted, some small number of people might think that and
actually succeed at it. But at the cost of things they could have been doing
efficiently, instead.)

~~~
gregpilling
"I don't think anyone ever says 'I need X, but don't know anything about it
myself. I'll just learn it.'"

Yes, people do that. Like me, when I was interested in having a strawbale
house I read a book and built a strawbale house (took 6 months). Learned a lot
about construction in the process. When I wanted a website, I read a book and
built my first website. Like the house, it was not the ultimate expression in
its field but it was a website. So now I am not an expert at construction nor
website building but I do know a whole lot more than the average person and I
do know what parts are hard and what parts are easy. Makes the conversations
with the real professionals much easier.

~~~
kenjackson
You're definitely unusual. Almost everything I own I bought by exchanging cash
for the product. Most services, I exchange cash for the service. I generate
the cash by doing things I'm good at.

My dad is unusual too though. Say you need a new dryer, he'll go on and tell
you that all it is is some heating something or other, sheet metal, yada yada
yada. I'm half way to Sears... :-)

------
vog
Wow, I'm really impressed how quickly this page loads!

Or, maybe I'm just too used to the masses of those annoyingly slowly loading
blogs.

~~~
loire280
It's written using NanoBlogger, which generates static HTML files. They're
being served from a university server, which means powerful web server with
nearly unlimited bandwidth. Hardly anything's static HTML nowadays...

Also it doesn't have dozens of plugins like so many blogs, so it's not hitting
Facebook, addthis, last.fm, etc.

------
anthonycerra
What it really boils down to is the drive of the individual. If you're not
willing to do whatever it takes to make the dream a reality then you're not an
entrepreneur.

That might mean growing your network to find a co-founder or it might mean
buckling down and learning to program yourself.

There's so much free information out there today that ignorance is no excuse.

------
zavulon
There's another option, without having to learn how to program.

Be good and make money at what you do so you can afford to pay good
programmers what their time is worth, so they can make your idea happen
without too much hassle.

(Disclaimer - I run a company that does just that)

------
rcavezza
I used to be one of those people before I learned how to program. Best
investment I've made in the last 10 years.

------
disgruntled
The problem with offering equity is that it's often just a dangling carrot
that never materializes. I've worked for several startups offering stock
options over the years and observed an alarming pattern: programmers are
treated as commodities to develop the idea, then laid off before the product
launch. The C-levels reap all the gains and the product builders go collect
unemployment.

------
joe_the_user
I believe that the punch-line is also _"but I don't intend to pay hourly
industry rates"_.

------
dools
I have quite a few people I know who are on the "business side" of the
entrepreneurial merry go round that quite often call me with their latest
idea.

The remarkable thing is that no matter how many times I get back to them with
a time estimate of 6 months - or a cost investment of $50k - $100k to get it
live etc. the first sentence they always speak is "it's just a simple site
that ... "

In fact it's not really limited to these guys. Everyone who calls me to get
something done starts off by telling me how simple it is. "It's just this
simple thing that ... " as if that's somehow going to make me realise that it
IS simple and I can actually do in a weekend what I had thought would take
months!!

If it's that simple, DO IT YOURSELF!

~~~
tjmc
My stepbrother used to do that. After politely turning down about his third
"simple" idea, I tried a different tack and asked him to draw the entire app
on paper.

After all, if it was so simple, it wouldn't take long to draw right? I
insisted he include the appearance of validation messages, system generated
emails and administration screens.

He didn't ask for my help again, but to his credit he did paper prototype
another idea and got a guy to code it.

------
JMWes
Too many business people think programming is a commodity that can be easily
outsourced. Too many programmers think business people all have vague ideas.
They are both wrong.

------
andyidsinga
I really liked this post. Jumping into execution/implementation, especially
when we're naive about all of complexities is a valuable learning experience.
It seems we're also likely to meet folks and make new friends who _do_
understand the complexities ..and from that group we'll find our project
partners.

He also makes a good point about discouraging people ...it seems we need to do
more of pointing people down the path of learning, implementation and
discovery.

Yoh ho ho.

------
commieneko
That post was much better than I expected.

Ideas are important (although the usually mutate in the process of
implementation.) The ability to implement is important (although the tendency
to go after low hanging fruit rather than what is actually needed is strong.)

The last ingredient, though, is the ability to communicate the idea and the
implementation to customers/investors/users/etc. Marketing, UI/Human Factors,
and Sales are often as important.

------
rwhitman
One thing I'd say is that I don't believe programmers are the only profession
afflicted with this scenario.

Who knows how many times I've had a 'brilliant' idea for something outside my
domain where I've said to myself "this is a great idea, now all I need is a
____". I am just thankful that I'm smart enough not to start asking successful
people to buy into my stupid idea until I've done some research first...

------
megaframe
I'm with this guy, if I have Ideas I learn to implement them myself, if
nothing else even if I got other people to do the work I know what they're
going through to do it so I can plan for it, and as issues arise I can help
not just sit around trying to motivate.

------
kaiwen1
Great quote:Learning to program used to be an inevitable consequence of using
computers. Sadly, that's no longer true. The inevitable consequence of using
computers these days seems to be interacting with people we may or may not
know well and watching videos.

------
naithemilkman
I am currently one of these guys in transition. Using Gladwell's 10,000 hour
as a proxy for mastery. I estimate getting between 100 - 250 hours of
programming time is good enough to get a working MVP out.

Does anyone think this is overly optimistic or unrealistic?

~~~
yoshyosh
Ive read it takes about 6 months. To be honest a lot of it is about deliberate
practice rather than just 'getting in the hours'

~~~
rndmcnlly0
"Deliberate practice" is, in fact, what Gladwell is saying the 10,000 hours
should measure.

------
TotlolRon
Naaa.

If you have an idea and you learn how to implement it you might find yourself
a single founder/creator.

You know what they say about those, right?

 _"What's wrong with having one founder? To start with, it's a vote of no
confidence. It probably means the founder couldn't talk any of his friends
into starting the company with him. That's pretty alarming, because his
friends are the ones who know him best."_ \-- Paul Graham, 18 mistakes, 2006.

~~~
andyidsinga
I disagree. If you want to interact with carpenters, learning about carpentry,
trying out carpentry (while not pretending to be an expert) helps a lot.

Put another way - its like speaking a language in a foreign country - the
effort and practice is quite meaningful to those who live there.

It seems that to avoid becoming a single founder we have to have the ability
to reach out and speak the language of those we want to join us.

Cheerio yohs.

