
Sorry Dan Shipper and other coders, you are wrong.  - zipop
http://blog.crranky.com/web/sorry-dan-shipper-you-are-wrong/
======
mindslight
Doctor: You seem to be in good health, what again did you say you need me to
do?

BizBrah: Well, I'd like to be several inches taller, and have four arms.

Doctor: I don't really, uh, do that sort of thing, if it were even possible.

BizBrah: Listen, this is a one in a million idea, I just need someone to
implement it. I'm the idea guy, you're the doctor.

Doctor: It's not impossible per se, but none of my colleagues would actually
attempt such things on a human subject. Perhaps you should read up a bit about
the current state of medical science, and maybe become a doctor if body
modification research is your calling.

BizBrah: I looked at what's available at the pharmacy, but it's all too hard
to understand. I love tall people. I love the dynamic nature of juggling many
things at once. Am I forever cursed to be uninvolved in the medical community
because doctors keep shooting down my ideas?

Doctor: ...

BizBrah glares demandingly.

Doctor: Actually, I _can_ help you out! The kind of doctor you're looking for
is called a psychiatrist. I know a good one, here's his card.

BizBrah: Bingo! I'm a people person, persuasion is my strength.

~~~
kitsune_
This is a flawed comparison because you do not need to "become a doctor" or
read up on medical science to know that there is currently no way to get
another pair of functioning human arms on top of the two you already have.

By the way, there are surgical options to grow taller by lengthening the limbs
[1]. I'm not a doctor.

[1] [http://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-man-grows-inches-
surgery/s...](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/york-man-grows-inches-
surgery/story?id=15776730#.UC6CykLh12M)

~~~
vecinu
I believe the strength of the joke lies in its cunning lesson, not in its
details.

------
dshipper
Thanks for the reply zipop I really appreciate the other perspective. That
said, you said some things in your response that make me think that the way I
wrote my post may have lead you to misinterpret the point I was trying to
make. Sorry about that, let me try to rephrase slightly.

To be clear: I know how tough it is to teach yourself how to code. When I was
teaching myself as a kid there was no StackOverflow, no Code Academy, and no
W3Schools. It was just me and my programming book, and either I figured out
the problem for myself or I had to give up. It was really hard.

The point I was trying to make wasn't that you could become a master engineer
in 6 months. That's absolutely untrue. The point I was trying to make is that
you can teach yourself enough code in 6 months to build SOMETHING, to move
yourself along far enough to get to the next level.

I know this is possible because I've seen people do it. One of my best friends
from school went from not knowing a how to write a single line of code to
being the lead technical founder on a YC company in less than a year.

The real point here is that it's very easy to tell yourself something is too
hard, and that you don't have enough time to learn it when that's really just
a personal constraint. The point is that it's easy to get distracted doing
things with short term rewards (going to events) rather than doing things with
rewards that are played out over the long term (building skill). It's more
written as a way to shift perspective than anything else. Again thanks for the
response, hopefully that cleared it up a little bit.

EDIT: Original post is here if you missed it: <http://danshipper.com/the-now-
syndrome>

~~~
jerf
I read it as coding just being a particular example. The argument works
equally well for a pure-tech founder who needs to pick up some marketing to
take his project to the next level.

~~~
dshipper
That's absolutely the way it was meant to be read.

------
Lasher
I'm a developer with extensive experience in building technology solutions and
scaling them at all levels, from Fortune 500 all the way down to hobby game
(400,000 lines of C / Lua) with a couple of thousand users running on a single
PC. I love all aspects of building up a platform and can't get enough of it.

I'm drawn to the _idea_ of being a technical co-founder and even have the
financial resources to take a calculated risk on equity over initial income
for a good amount of time. I don't live in CA, don't particularly want to
move, and really struggle with these online "find a co-founder" sites when
it's so hit and miss.

I feel like I have decent business sense but would prefer to spend my time
building rather than dealing with VCs and fund raising and board meetings and
paperwork so I just focus on small sites making "pocket money" and let the
bigger opportunities pass by.

I guess my point in all this is that it isn't just "none technical co-
founders" struggling here. This whole area of "partner discovery" is still
wide open for someone to come along and find a better way to do things. Do any
of the VC companies themselves do any kind of "partnering up"? If finding a
technical co-founder is a challenge for so many people then perhaps there's a
way for would-be leaders on the technical side to make themselves known to VCs
up front, complete whatever interviews were necessary and let the VCs (or
another 3rd party) do the matchmaking at a deeper level than just filling in
forms on a site? Definitely open to suggestions in the meantime...

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I agree the problem is still open. It's a _very_ difficult problem. Partners
have to trust each other. It is hard to build that kind of trust ethereally,
and startups, by definition, don't have the capital to have people travel
around "dating".

Solving that problem would certainly open many doors, and not just in the
startup world.

~~~
sounds
I'd love to see a blog post along the lines of this thread.

One question I have is that each partnership in my experience has a different
mode of operation. For some, it's a lot like a marriage. For others it's a "I
can work with him. I could never stand him in a social setting."

Then there are the well-known partnerships of the past: Jobs and Woz, Larry
and Sergey, ...

------
gavanwoolery
When I was about 11, I bought this book: [http://www.amazon.com/Teach-
Yourself-Game-Programming-Cd-Rom...](http://www.amazon.com/Teach-Yourself-
Game-Programming-Cd-Rom/dp/0672305623)

I had never touched programming before. I read the whole book, and did the
lessons, but C++ was just too hard for a beginner.

Then I found QBASIC sitting on my computer. QBASIC was easy, it was idiot
proof. I learned all the basics (pun) of programming in 1 day. The problem is
not that programming is hard, it is that these days there is no easy starting
point. To an experienced developer, Javascript might seem easy, but after
trying to teach it to my brother for the past few months, you can see how
complex it really is for beginners. He took every course at Code Academy and
is still struggling.

~~~
sadga
Opening up your browser's JS console and typing alert("hello, world!")

is way easier than running GORILLAS.BAS

------
cousin_it
How much of programming potential is innate? Is saying "I'm not built to be a
coder" more like saying "I'm not built to learn a foreign language" (which is
implausible and smacks of laziness if you're at least moderately intelligent),
or more like "I'm not built to be six feet tall" (which is true for most of
the world's population)? I'm interested in the truth here, not in just-so
answers based on personal experience. Are there good scientific studies
answering this question, and do they agree? And if programming potential is
mostly innate, is there a simple test for it that doesn't take 6 months?

~~~
sirclueless
I'm repeatedly surprised by how often good coders take their skillsets for
granted, as something everyone could learn in a short time if they set their
mind to it. They think that just because computers make intuitive sense to
them, and they can learn any new programming language or paradigm in a few
weeks, a newbie could do the same -- albeit in a matter of months, perhaps.
They learned their most important skills from toodling around on the internet,
or deconstructing simple machines or programs or something, and they think
that this means you don't need formal training, it can come to anyone with
time.

The thing is, I don't think people appreciate how much of a deep skill
thinking logically is. It's not something you can pick up in a weekend: there
is a monstrous gap between the basic common sense appreciation of cause and
effect that nearly everyone attains in their lifetime, and the rigorous
analytic mind that can look at a series of instructions and deduce all
possible outcomes. This is a skill that doesn't require formal training, yes,
but it is a skill that must be mastered, with all its requisite 10,000 hours
of training beforehand. The best programmers have all been doing this for
years, deconstructing the world and its workings whenever they can, and
learning the mechanical structure behind their every experience. This training
has given them a unique mastery, and while it's not for me to say whether this
skill is fundamentally innate or purely a result of practice, it certainly
takes years to develop the right modes of thinking. All I can say is that
mastery the ability to think logically is a prerequisite for programming in
any deep sense, and not everyone has this skill. This is why when I ask my
mathematician and physicist friends to look at a program, they can decipher it
in minutes even if they don't consider it particularly gripping, while if I
ask my writer and even medically trained friends they blankly stare at a wall
of gibberish.

Sorry if this answer is more anecdotal than you are asking for, but in my
experience there is a fundamental skill in programming that must be mastered
that many programmers take for granted, and you can't expect people without it
to pick up deep programming in a reasonable amount of time. That's not to say
there's no useful place in a place with colleagues for someone who can't
really synthesize new bulletproof code, especially in this age of Google and
StackOverflow, but the kind of skill people need to whip up a prototype of a
novel application on their own without outside assistance takes years. I think
Zed Shaw is right in his response to this blog post, if you really are a
"people person" than perhaps coming to a programmer with a completely thought-
through user experience designed out matches your skillset better, and it's
every bit as valuable to the final product as programming knowledge.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
This is one of the best comments I've read on this topic. Again, anecdotally,
I look at the world in a massively different way than other people in my
family (other than my brother who is also good with computers). This way of
thinking is repeat with looking under the hood, analyzing why things behave
the way they do, and imagining other outcomes that could occur. There is also
a lo more questioning, followed by _needing_ to know the answer.

I wonder how you could define a study to determine corellation versus
causation here. Maybe I think this way because I've spent so much time
fighting computers. Or maybe I've been willing to spend so much time fighting
computers because I think this way. It's a fascinating question to me.

------
ecubed
I don't think the message us technical guys are trying to get across is that
you need to become one of us and strive for the full ability to implement your
idea all by yourself. Hell, the less people that are awesome programmers the
better, keeps us in high demand.

After my experience with a very-non-technical co-founder before, I dont think
I would ever again agree to work with someone who couldn't at the very least
know how to read the source code and manually tweak database entries. Working
with someone who has read the basic rails tutorials makes it infinitely easier
to communicate and mutually understand technical and temporal restrictions on
a product in development.

I'm a programmer, but I sure as hell read Inbound.org, dribbble, forrst, and
other sites besides just technically oriented ones so I at the very least can
use the same vocabulary to describe and understand what a a partner is doing
and why they're choosing to do it that way. I expect anyone I work with to be
similarly versed.

------
AlexBlom
I think you make some valid points, and as somebody who self-taught, I get the
pain. That being said, I also agree with the common sentiment here "help
yourself a little first".

If you consider yourself a technology company, you need an understanding of
your technology and what goes into making it. You may not be a master at each
part, but you need _something_. It doesn't mean you are not marketing, but
like marketing a technology implementation has several nuances that can't be
overlooked. Tension always arises when these aren't well understood. Times
this problem by 10 if you want "magic" / algorithms which little concept of
how they will work (note: you don't need computing studies to figure this out,
generally).

Note that I said 'consider yourself a technology company'. There are many
companies based on technology that are not, themselves, technology companies
(you can argue either way whether this is the right model, but it works). From
my experience, these are the companies hunting less for technical co-founders
(and who have less excuse for no traction pre product).

------
tptacek
If you have a great idea, and the value you bring to the table in executing it
is "sales", start by selling it to a developer. I'm not sure what we're
arguing about here.

------
tdonia
The OP is replying to this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4395008>

------
Ganthor
I'm a business student and I feel ashamed the rise of non-technical people in
the startup field acting like they've got incredibly valuable skills. I
learned more in introductory compsci classes than all the BS in my business
classes combined.

In regards to startups, technical people are so much more valuable than non-
technical people. Non-technical people keep on perpetuating this:
<http://whartoniteseekscodemonkey.tumblr.com/> -esque mentality by saying
things like this:

>"I am the nontechnical founder of several great startup ideas (I didn’t say
startups) sometimes very poorly executed."

The founder of an idea? That doesn't mean much in my mind (then again, I don't
know much about the author at all, nor could I did up much). Execution is key
to a startup - and technical people are largely the ones that get the
important shit done.

Non-technical people can add value for sure - but I think only a small margin
of them have valuable skills that rival technical talent in a startup setting.

~~~
mindcrime
I think it's a mistake to equate all "non technical people" as "idea people"
which is what I seem to be reading in your post. There are people who are just
"idea people" who have no particular skills in terms of technology OR
business.

But _real_ "business people* provide a TON of value. Someone who understands
marketing, distribution, sales, fundraising and all of those things?
Tremendously valuable to startups (at least some classes of startups). Find me
somebody who can construct and execute a solid marketing strategy, craft a
good "core story", do market research, develop solid positioning, and who
understands PR and how to get stories placed, someone with an extensive
personal contacts list which includes the kind of customers you're looking
for, someone who understands the fundraising process and has connections with
investors, someone who can cold call a customer, get a meeting, make a
presentation and close a sale.... find me that person and I'll offer them a
significant equity stake in my startup, to join up as a non-technical co-
founder, even if they've never written a line of code in their life, and have
no interest in doing so.

------
hoodwink
Using your own example, you don't go to newly graduated doctors and say, "I
have this great idea for a general practice. Let's open a shop together split
it 50/50."

I think Dan's point is that if you believe strongly enough in your idea, then
it ought to be worth the time investment required to personally execute it. At
the very least, take it to a level advanced enough to be able to sell the
concept (and yourself) to prospective partners/employees and get them excited.

If you don't think you have the aptitude to learn the nuts and bolts of the
particular execution, then you should probably refocus on another idea for
which you are qualified. Alternatively, you could try and convince someone
else to execute your idea and hope that he or she takes you along for the
ride.

------
anuraj
To be a programmer is non-trivial and takes skills and learning. To understand
the basics of web development is not. There are too many half cooked coders
out there without necessary skill or education to properly engineer complex
solutions. That do not mean you can't dabble with coding and still not be a
programmer, just like I can dabble with painting - need not be Picasso. That
is why specialities exist.

------
yesimahuman
While I can't empathize with you because I _am_ a programmer, I feel like PHP
isn't a great language to start on simply due to the fact that you have to
coordinate a lot of non-programming things (servers, remote editing, HTML/CSS,
etc.). I think you'd be more successful starting with Python or something else
with a REPL.

PHP might be easier to learn on now than it was for me 8 years ago, I don't
really know.

------
bitwize
It's not hard to learn to code.

Start with Scheme as your language and _SICP_ and/or _The Little Schemer_ as
your instruction books.

A smart person can become a competent coder if there is as little friction as
possible between him and "holy shit, this actually works, aren't I awesome?"

When you're ready to try more practical stuff, then it's time to dip your toes
into Python.

------
jfoutz
Ok, but what are you bringing to the table? Coding is hard. Talking people
into giving you money is hard. Either one is sufficient for making a demo.

------
jason3
It's because you're a fucking idiot.

~~~
chc
You have made five comments on Hacker News. Three of them are extremely rude
and vulgar (the language doesn't bother me, but the sentiment behind it does).
The norm here is civil, intelligent conversation, which is the opposite of
"It's because you're a fucking idiot." If you keep going this way, you're
going to get hellbanned. Just a friendly heads-up.

~~~
swordswinger12
Why warn him? Let them bring the hellbanhammer down.

~~~
chc
Some people are capable of more, but for whatever reason have fallen into a
rut of uselessness. For those people, a warning can help and they might even
go on to become productive commenters. I've even made good friends out of
people I nearly wrote off in the beginning. If he/she's not one of those
people, the warning will do nothing, the hellban will come soon enough and my
comment will have done no harm. I like to see people have a chance to better
themselves, even if they probably won't take it.

~~~
swordswinger12
You are a better man/woman than I, then.

