3 ms·

Thank you for making your process public. In almost any endeavor where one compares his own process only to the observable outcome of another's process, he can

Thank you for making your process public. In almost any endeavor where one compares his own process only to the observable outcome of another's process, he can believe erroneously that his (possibly superior) results are the fruit of inefficient labor and near incompetence. While I must edit repeatedly to produce reasonable prose, PG can just dash off a brilliant essay. Few know how may takes were required for a screen actor to nail a particularly difficult scene -- we just see the near-perfect result. Obviously, the same phenomenon occurs in software development. Look at how brilliantly Kevin Bourrillion (et. al., of course) designed the Guava API! [One of my favorite APIs from a design perspective] How many discussions over beverages with Josh Bloch were actually required, and to how many internal iterations at Google were we never privy? It is only by adjusting our perceptions of the processes by which others produce quality work that we can feel good about our own abilities.

csallen 15y ago
I spend a lot of time thinking about stuff like this. Specifically, the difference between creative endeavors (where you iterate on something before releasing it), and performance-based endeavors (where you try to nail a live run-through of what you've practiced). In either situation, the amount of work that went into things is hidden from the audience. We simply admire (or abhor) the final product or performance. But it's actually much different to be a creator than it is to be a performer. As a performer, there's no guarantee that the extent of your practice will shine through in the end: performance-under-pressure and amount-of-preparation are equally important variables (although the latter can be said to affect the former). Creators are lucky by comparison. Their only real concern is iteration. You can generally assume that the more time you spend working on something, the better the finished product will be. So iteration is a function of (A) how much time you have before you release, and (B) how efficiently you spend that time. It can be hard to measure B without comparing yourself to others. But I'm often surprised at how much my writing/design/code/etc improves with even minimal increases to A.
- minikomi 15y ago
  You may enjoy Matthew Herbert's mistakes manifesto, designed to enhance those little moments you didn't expect. http://www.matthewherbert.com/manifesto/ http://www.matthewherbert.com/manifesto/

csallen 15y ago

I spend a lot of time thinking about stuff like this. Specifically, the difference between creative endeavors (where you iterate on something before releasing it), and performance-based endeavors (where you try to nail a live run-through of what you've practiced). In either situation, the amount of work that went into things is hidden from the audience. We simply admire (or abhor) the final product or performance. But it's actually much different to be a creator than it is to be a performer. As a performer, there's no guarantee that the extent of your practice will shine through in the end: performance-under-pressure and amount-of-preparation are equally important variables (although the latter can be said to affect the former). Creators are lucky by comparison. Their only real concern is iteration. You can generally assume that the more time you spend working on something, the better the finished product will be. So iteration is a function of (A) how much time you have before you release, and (B) how efficiently you spend that time. It can be hard to measure B without comparing yourself to others. But I'm often surprised at how much my writing/design/code/etc improves with even minimal increases to A.

minikomi 15y ago
You may enjoy Matthew Herbert's mistakes manifesto, designed to enhance those little moments you didn't expect. http://www.matthewherbert.com/manifesto/ http://www.matthewherbert.com/manifesto/