4 ms·

What you say is indeed important, but I wouldn't say the work before that is not "real work". It's just different types of work. Ask any successful startup foun

What you say is indeed important, but I wouldn't say the work before that is not "real work". It's just different types of work. Ask any successful startup founder what their initial codebase was like and they would say--if they're honest--it was shitty. There's a reason for this. The "real work" you mention comes into play only after the product has reached product market fit and needs scaling. Before that phase, it's all about struggling to make things work, and people don't have time to refactor everytime they need to make a small tweak and experiment. So naturally by the time the "real work" guys come in they will think "WTF the code is so shitty, whoever wrote this is an idiot". But they should know that they're there only because of that shitty code. If they were in that same situation (and rational) they would have done the same thing--write a consequentially shitty code.

Retric 10y ago
Early work is closer to a lottery than anything else. If you only look at winners you will end up with a distorted view, but right product, right time, right market is more about luck than skill. MVP is all about validation because there is no way to judge good vs great before you build it. So, the only way to improve odds is to just roll more dice.
- im_down_w_otp 10y ago
  You can still write great code (meaning: clean non-leaky abstractions, proper separation of concerns, functional testing, clearly organized, and unintuitive bits documented) without having market validation, and I'd suggest that doing so will actually make it a lot easier for you to shift the pieces of the project, remove them, rewrite them, extend them, etc. as you start to hone in on the marketplace fit, and doubly so as you need to start growing your development team and need to on-board them effectively so everyone can be productive without just rapidly accruing compound interest on the technical debt that's already there. It doesn't take that much longer to write great code when it's just part of the first-principles of your engineering process. You just do it as you go, but best-practices need to be scaffolded and modelled for everyone beforehand to give them a solid starting point for what "minimally viable" actually looks like. A single well-placed sentence that describes something necessary, but non-idiomatic or non-obvious, that takes 10sec to write can save you hours or days of tracing and debugging at that crucial moment right before you're onboarding a pilot customer or pitching investors. Very often the bar of "minimally" is set way, way too low and the trope of that just being "startup life" is usually just laying problems at the feet of engineering that don't belong there by justifying, sometimes horrifying, technical debt which are really process and management failures, and later eventually scapegoating engineering for it.
  - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
    I agree with you in theory, but from experience it is extremely hard to achieve when you're actually in that position. Unlike what you say, it does take much longer to write great code when you're trying new things every day. Every time you try something new, by definition you're building something that you hadn't planned when you first started. Which means if you really wanted to be perfect you would end up refactoring every day. This is not a small effort in total. You could say you should have prepared for that scenario from the beginning, but I don't think it's a good idea to believe that you can predict the future especially when you're building something that hasn't existed before.
    - im_down_w_otp 10y ago
      In my experience, when you're in the "invention phase" is when it's most critical and beneficial to have and demand more discipline around your output artifacts. Precisely because keeping context and content around your fast iterative decision-making and implementation phases is critical to avoid wasting time on duplicated effort or needlessly repeating mistakes over and over again. Literally every situation I've ever seen in 20 years across all manner of marketplaces and every imaginable stage of development has had the immediate faux-gains made from ignoring spending 10%-20% more time now (to produce something at least coherent, commented, and composable) ultimately overwhelmed by the soon-to-be-immediate costs of having to live with the consequences of the dubious "shortcuts" taken. I agree with you that it's extremely hard to achieve maintaining that kind of discipline when under the gun, but that's a people management and expectations problem, not an engineering effort problem. I'm 100% certain that in any given window of time, no matter how crunchy that crunchtime is, that if my team spends 10-15 out of every 100 man-hours producing a higher-quality "minimally acceptable" artifact that they'll both materially accomplish more in that first 100 hours than if they'd spent all of it hacking together a barely working dumpster-fire in the same window of time, and that it will pay glaringly obvious dividends for their productivity in the next 100 hours after, and the next after that, and so on. Lacking that discipline is neither a necessary condition nor a near or long-term benefit to a prototyping or product development cycle. It's purely a function of leadership, expectations management, and experience. (I'm even giving the benefit of the doubt that what's being done "hasn't existed before", which is overwhelmingly not the case. More typically it's different people and different teams just painfully learning the same hard lessons in parallel, often because there's an assumption/delusion what's being done is a legitimate pioneering effort instead of the probable reality that it's really a minor variation on something else that already has well-established successful models available to learn from and mimic.)
rrecuero 10y ago
Couldn't agree with it more. "Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen". Startups are the opposite of having clear requirements. There is a lot of uncertainty. In my opinion, it is usually orders of magnitude harder to figure out what to dot hat gets suers than building something "perfect" that nobody cares about

Retric 10y ago

Early work is closer to a lottery than anything else. If you only look at winners you will end up with a distorted view, but right product, right time, right market is more about luck than skill. MVP is all about validation because there is no way to judge good vs great before you build it. So, the only way to improve odds is to just roll more dice.

im_down_w_otp 10y ago
You can still write great code (meaning: clean non-leaky abstractions, proper separation of concerns, functional testing, clearly organized, and unintuitive bits documented) without having market validation, and I'd suggest that doing so will actually make it a lot easier for you to shift the pieces of the project, remove them, rewrite them, extend them, etc. as you start to hone in on the marketplace fit, and doubly so as you need to start growing your development team and need to on-board them effectively so everyone can be productive without just rapidly accruing compound interest on the technical debt that's already there. It doesn't take that much longer to write great code when it's just part of the first-principles of your engineering process. You just do it as you go, but best-practices need to be scaffolded and modelled for everyone beforehand to give them a solid starting point for what "minimally viable" actually looks like. A single well-placed sentence that describes something necessary, but non-idiomatic or non-obvious, that takes 10sec to write can save you hours or days of tracing and debugging at that crucial moment right before you're onboarding a pilot customer or pitching investors. Very often the bar of "minimally" is set way, way too low and the trope of that just being "startup life" is usually just laying problems at the feet of engineering that don't belong there by justifying, sometimes horrifying, technical debt which are really process and management failures, and later eventually scapegoating engineering for it.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  I agree with you in theory, but from experience it is extremely hard to achieve when you're actually in that position. Unlike what you say, it does take much longer to write great code when you're trying new things every day. Every time you try something new, by definition you're building something that you hadn't planned when you first started. Which means if you really wanted to be perfect you would end up refactoring every day. This is not a small effort in total. You could say you should have prepared for that scenario from the beginning, but I don't think it's a good idea to believe that you can predict the future especially when you're building something that hasn't existed before.
  - im_down_w_otp 10y ago
    In my experience, when you're in the "invention phase" is when it's most critical and beneficial to have and demand more discipline around your output artifacts. Precisely because keeping context and content around your fast iterative decision-making and implementation phases is critical to avoid wasting time on duplicated effort or needlessly repeating mistakes over and over again. Literally every situation I've ever seen in 20 years across all manner of marketplaces and every imaginable stage of development has had the immediate faux-gains made from ignoring spending 10%-20% more time now (to produce something at least coherent, commented, and composable) ultimately overwhelmed by the soon-to-be-immediate costs of having to live with the consequences of the dubious "shortcuts" taken. I agree with you that it's extremely hard to achieve maintaining that kind of discipline when under the gun, but that's a people management and expectations problem, not an engineering effort problem. I'm 100% certain that in any given window of time, no matter how crunchy that crunchtime is, that if my team spends 10-15 out of every 100 man-hours producing a higher-quality "minimally acceptable" artifact that they'll both materially accomplish more in that first 100 hours than if they'd spent all of it hacking together a barely working dumpster-fire in the same window of time, and that it will pay glaringly obvious dividends for their productivity in the next 100 hours after, and the next after that, and so on. Lacking that discipline is neither a necessary condition nor a near or long-term benefit to a prototyping or product development cycle. It's purely a function of leadership, expectations management, and experience. (I'm even giving the benefit of the doubt that what's being done "hasn't existed before", which is overwhelmingly not the case. More typically it's different people and different teams just painfully learning the same hard lessons in parallel, often because there's an assumption/delusion what's being done is a legitimate pioneering effort instead of the probable reality that it's really a minor variation on something else that already has well-established successful models available to learn from and mimic.)

rrecuero 10y ago

Couldn't agree with it more. "Walking on water and developing software from a specification are easy if both are frozen". Startups are the opposite of having clear requirements. There is a lot of uncertainty. In my opinion, it is usually orders of magnitude harder to figure out what to dot hat gets suers than building something "perfect" that nobody cares about