
A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013) - ktamura
https://al3x.net/2013/05/23/letter-to-a-young-programmer.html
======
CloudYeller
I don't like this kind of article that presumes that their readers have a
choice in this matter. Reminds me of a friend of mine who once naively advised
me to only take a job at a company that I would invest my own money in. I said
are you kidding me? I've been grinding for months and failing interviews left
and right just to get this job and you're telling me don't do it because it's
not Google or something?

A huge portion of humans don't have the luxury to say "hmmmm, this startup is
ok but myyyeehhh, I kinda like this one better, err idk maybe i'll just go to
GiantCorp". I took jobs because they paid me to write code. The story is
probably the same for 90% of humans who are doing the best they can in their
own situations.

Oh yeah, and the crappy companies I wrote code for years ago? Those are the
places that gave me a foundation for a successful career as a programmer. I
absolutely could not have done it without them because they were actually
willing to invest a little bit in me-- which (in my experience) might not have
happened, even at megacorps or unicorn startups.

~~~
quanticle
I totally agree. My first job was exactly as you describe. I graduated in
2009, in the teeth of the recession, and every company I applied to had a
hiring freeze... except for one, which was known to be a miserable place to
work, and known for chewing up programmers and spitting them out after six
months to a year of grinding labor. I signed on anyway, because, at the time,
I needed a job, any job on my resume. So I took the job, but I was cognizant
of the fact that it was a "gig", not a career, and I spent time burnishing my
portfolio outside of work, and kept looking. The moment the job market started
to thaw, I jumped ship for a modest improvement in pay and a massive
improvement in working conditions.

That said, I think you're underestimating how good the job market is for
programmers right now. Yes, your _first_ job might suck. But if it does, try
to recognize that fact early and make plans to switch companies at the
earliest possible moment. Look in other cities (or even other countries) if
you must. This is, after all, advice for _young_ programmers, so they're not
likely to have houses, family, etc. tying them down to a single location.

------
quanticle
As controversial as his points are, I feel like Michael O. Church really nails
this hypothesis. Startup CEOs are not CEOs in any meaningful sense. Startup
CEOs are our equivalent of what division vice-presidents were in the '50s and
'60s. They're executives with a certain level of autonomy, to be sure, but
they're hardly the independent mavericks that the rhetoric around startups
would have you believe. Just like VPs in the old corporate conglomerates were
ultimately answerable to the CEO, now our startup "CEOs" are answerable to the
VC-appointed boards of directors.

In fact, if you squint your eyes a little, a modern Silicon Valley VC firm
looks an awful lot like a corporate conglomerate from the '60s (e.g. 3M).

~~~
smt88
I find this analysis pretty baffling and wildly differing from my own
experience. In my experience, startup CEOs are exactly what CEOs usually are
-- not totally independent, but beholden to investors/shareholders who want to
see their money grow.

I've never heard of a company so tightly managed by its VCs that you could
liken them to upper management. Sure, they might make some final decisions,
but most VCs just don't have time to scrutinize their portfolio companies that
closely.

------
meesterdude
I think the author raises some important and valuable advice that applies to
anyone/everyone. It certainly has me wondering about my motives for building a
company.

But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of
"startups", not the slow-growth or lifestyle approaches that one could
alternatively take. When you don't have to impress investors, you can approach
things differently. Deadlines are more up to you, and customers are more
supportive as long as you're taking care of them.

Customers want a product that solves their problems and requires as little
thought as possible to use(at least in Software). VC's want a significant
return on their investment. Both have money, but only one of them will
continually give you money. Which would you rather aim for?

Anyway, I think its worth reflecting on how the startup will fit into your
life, and what kinda time you will put into it. It doesn't HAVE to be 80 hours
a week. Doesn't even need to be 40. Success is up to you to define; unless
you're playing with someone else's money.

Personally, my goal is rent. If I can build something that can earn me enough
money to always cover my monthly rent, that's success for me. Anything beyond
that is icing on the cake.

~~~
quanticle
>But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of
"startups"

I think startups, as far as Hacker News is concerned, are "go big or go home"
businesses. Quoth Paul Graham:

    
    
        A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not
        in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on
        technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only
        essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows
        from growth.
    

[http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html)

~~~
meesterdude
I'm glad you bring this up.

That's according to Paul Graham, and I respectfully (and strongly) disagree
with that definition; nor do i believe it to be the hacker news definition, as
that is subject to the collective opinion despite whatever official stances
may be taken.

But I recognize that ycombinator is certainly focused on that type of startup,
and that they obviously have influence on HN.

But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition;
which is why i often find myself highlighting it when it presents itself in a
HN link.

~~~
dozzie
> But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition

So what defines this "startup" thing? How "startup" is different from a "small
company"? Because, you know, not everyone opening a business needs to be
"startup", and that's OK.

~~~
jacquesm
Quite often 'small companies' hit a vein that suddenly causes them to scale
beyond their wildest dreams (I know this happens, because it happened to me).

Paul is super smart and wildly successful (as is YC) but he doesn't have a
monopoly on what certain words in the English language mean. Defining a start-
up in such a way that it benefits the YC narrative should be seen as a
marketing ploy rather than a statement of fact or an extremely insightful
realization.

It's not as if the word 'start-up' originated with Ycombinator, or with Paul
Graham.

By other definitions a start-up is a company that is more potential than
realization of that potential, an idea packaged in a company that might one
day be successful or it might not.

The success element is often still up for grabs long before a start-up fits
the PG description of what a start-up is. It's a useful definition within a
certain context but don't be surprised if outside of the 'YC bubble' (or more
properly the SV bubble) the word has subtly or even widely different
interpretations that are just as valid.

I note this trend to creative redefinition or claiming ownership of terms a
lot with successful SV entities. It's a 'partial reality distortion field' and
I'm sure it is useful to them otherwise it wouldn't be such an often repeating
pattern but you should be aware of the fact that the world is a lot bigger
than that.

------
paublyrne
_There was no mention of what his hypothetical company would do, what problem
it would solve for people. His goal was business for the sake of business._

I think it's perfectly valid to want to get into business for its own sake,
and not because you have a 'passion' for a specific area. It worked for
Richard Branson.

The 'find what you love/do what you love' mantra is an invention of our time.

------
gizi
If a startup insists that it will play by existing rules, it usually does not
stand much of a chance, even though there are a few notable exceptions. So,
the way to go about things, is to do something that clearly breaks the rules,
but that is also virtually impossible to shut down. Something like Napster
well done. Young people should even be more willing to do that. Furthermore,
there are 200+ countries, most of which are powerless to do anything at all.
If nobody is going to be pissed off with your startup, it will probably not be
a home run.

------
chwood
I still believe that for recent graduates looking to begin their career, there
is no better option than to join an early-stage startup. Admittedly, it's like
buying a lottery ticket, but if you win you can win very big and give your
career a massive boost. On the other hand, if you lose you have still gained
valuable career experience equal to or greater than what you could have gained
at "GiantCorp". More importantly, early stage startups offer employees a broad
but shallow understanding of businesses, versus GiantCorp's narrow but deep
understanding. This is important for young employees who may not be 100% sure
what they would like to specialize in yet.

~~~
twic
Why is the career experience more valuable than that you'd get at a big
company?

If we're taking about developers here, then the experience a recent graduate
needs is how to become a better, more capable developer.

In a big company, they'll have multiple senior colleagues, established
processes, numerous large and varied codebases to study, and a large body of
institutional experience to learn from.

In a startup, they'll have what? A frazzled technical founder with little more
experience than them and no time for them, a few equally inexperienced
colleagues, and a crummy Rails codebase.

~~~
cableshaft
You're absolutely correct, but the main benefit of working in a startup, from
my personal experience, is you have your hands in the product from end-to-end,
and have to wear many hats in the process of getting the product to market,
and probably even have discussions and input on both design and business
decisions going into the product.

You will probably not get significantly better at process and architecture
design in a startup, but you will learn how to get the damn thing to work no
matter what, at every stage of the process, instead of being responsible for
one little feature here and there and working on tech that is likely 5-10
years old and in maintenance, bug-fixing mode.

I think working in both environments is valuable, as you probably won't see
the value of unit testing, code reviews, continuous integration, and senior
mentors in a startup environment, but being able to see the entire lifecycle
gives you a perspective that other programmers that stay with big companies
aren't as likely to see as well.

Also, I've worked in corporate environments with much worse development
practices than startups, as well, mainly companies where software is not their
main business. It goes both ways.

