4 ms·

Where are the docker/redis/next.js/linux kernel/qt/roller-coaster tycoon creators? Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive

Where are the docker/redis/next.js/linux kernel/qt/roller-coaster tycoon creators? Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive work is the result of iterations in tiny steps. When you see something that makes you go "WOW! I could never do that!" you're seeing the final result of a long journey, and you probably could have taken each small step with a bit of effort. There's no need for a special title for people who make amazing things. They're not that different to the rest of us. The main thing they have going for them is an environment that lets them shine - time to research and explore, less pressure to do things that aren't moving them towards the end result we see, and fewer externalities that make them lose focus. I'm not suggesting just anyone could make Linux or Roller Coaster Tycoon, but I am definitely of the opinion that given then right circumstances most people could produce something that other people believe is at that sort of level of complexity. May we all find those jobs one day.

mywittyname 3y ago
When I worked at mega corps, I'd see a "new" tech emerged that was always very similar to a software that our company had developed to solve similar issues. I remember terraform getting released and seeing that it was just an inferior version of the Cloud Formation Template generator someone at my company had invented years prior. I've seen this happen so many times and every time, I'm surprised that more businesses don't spin off cool internal projects like this into startups. Hashicorp's market cap is roughly 10% of the market cap of the megacorp I used to work for. And right now, my team is working on an internal project to fill the gaps left by various authentication providers we use. But instead of spinning this off into it's own business, they are just kind of waiting around for someone else to develop a better product so they can buy it instead. It was explained to me that investors generally don't like spinning off internal projects because it can be a distraction, but it does feel like investors are leaving a billion+ dollars on the table. Especially given the absurd P/E multiples software startups enjoy. To circle this comment back, I think a lot of staff engineers are working on the next generation of cool technology right now. But they might be working at boring old companies, like a massive retailer, and eventually that internal project will get replaced by one built by the engineer who decides to venture on their own and replicate what they were building as a stand-alone product.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  I could have a really cool time-travelling database to sell you, but I can't because I signed away my right to invent. So, if you really want to > built by the engineer who decides to venture on their own and replicate what they were building as a stand-alone product. We need to change our contracts.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
    I think this is the key: employment contracts/ip policies should be designed to encourage spinning off internal projects (that are ‘distractions’ front he core product) as separate business units or as open source projects.
- coliveira 3y ago
  There is a simple reason why megacorps don't spin off projects: they would need someone with vision to search for these projects and with high authority to proceed on the spin off. They don't have this kind of people, for the obvious reason that it is not their main concern. Executives in any megacorp are 100% busy making the core business a success, and investing time in small projects that may come to nothing is just a distraction. This may just explain why big corporations are just a waste of time and resources, in the long term.
  - diceduckmonk 3y ago
    > They don't have this kind of people Because the people with vision and conviction would be running their own startups
  - jameshart 3y ago
    Not just that they don't have those people. They also don't have the money. Because most companies are operating with someone else's money. It belongs to the shareholders or the investors or the bank. And they have been entrusted with that money in order to conduct a very particular business venture. If they go off using that money to spin up side-hustles selling engineering tools, they're taking risks with someone else's money to do something they weren't told to do.
glitchc 3y ago
That's an unfair characterization. You are low-balling the creativity, discipline and bureaucracy management ability these individuals bring to the table. The right circumstances are only part of the acquisition. Aptidude and attitude are the other parts.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive work is the result of iterations in tiny steps. I think you are right. Really impressive work is generally the result of a longer journey than you realize. The time and effort put into it is probably underestimated. But my mind immediately tries to think of exceptions (which totally prove the rule). I'm curious if others would agree with this one: Sometimes there are just really great ideas. Minecraft comes to mind. And I don't mean today's Minecraft. I mean the alpha and beta versions which were wildly popular and essentially just an engine and sandbox world with a tiny fraction of the features today's game has. People have recreated that core game many times with fairly trivial code, which is why I attribute this more to "great idea" than long iterative process that most people cant replicate. And a totally anecdotally and subjective reason (although I've heard others express it too). I found the game immediately nostalgic. It was new but it felt old - like it had existed in some form before but had just now taken shape. That to me seems like a great idea. Ironically, I find myself questioning if I underestimated how long Notch took to create it. A cursory search says a week for the initial version, but this timeline shows more like 1 to 1.5 years from nothing to alpha: https://minecraft-timeline.github.io/ https://minecraft-timeline.github.io/ Even still, the fact that the core game can be recreated without too much effort does suggest that that it was more about being a good idea than being difficult to implement. I don't look at Minecraft and think "wow I could never do this." Instead I look at it and think, "Wow. That was a really great idea." Although I suppose you could says that great ideas are an iterative process too. But at that point you have to decouple "really impressive stuff" from "I could never do this".
- withinboredom 3y ago
  > People have recreated that core game many times with fairly trivial code Yes, because they have something to reference. It was like Notch took a level editor and made it into the game itself. That isn't an easy thing to figure out and takes time. > Sometimes there are just really great ideas. Ideas are easy and usually it's really stupid ideas that turn out to be great ideas. Who would think that an FPS level editor would be a good idea? Or a text box that anyone can edit on a profile page would be popular (facebook)? There are not great ideas, just ideas that are executed well.
timacles 3y ago
The thing that separates those guys from everyone else is simple. Its stamina. No there isn't some higher level of understanding or deep perception. Every one of the all time great programmers had 1 exact thing in common with no exceptions. Stamina. You will not find a single outlier. They did their craft every day, for many hours, year after year. So sure, any of us could have taken the individual small steps. But when you look at a whole body of work, you'll see they're cranking through these "small steps" like the Juggernaut running through walls for decades
- sibeliuss 3y ago
  This is the answer. There's certainly ridiculous talent (especially with ideas), but in my experience it always comes down to stamina stretched through time. Cool things get built by people that stick it out, and recruit others to do the same. And also know _exactly_ when to exit to pursue something new (but that's a different subject).
  - tltimeline2 3y ago
    Interesting, is the ability to know when to exit a prerequisite? I would think there's a distribution between those you spoke of and some that just picked one thing and went forever.
    - sibeliuss 3y ago
      Well what I mean is there's an ability to see precisely when just enough is done -- no more, no less -- before one can hand things over and exit with sanity and / or dignity. It goes hand in hand. Many work very hard and quit before _the_ critical thing is done, which in a sense forfeits all prior work; others continue working and working and burn out. The best understand something about timing, almost in an intuitive sense. I've seen it again and again, and it's impressive.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- biscuits1 3y ago
emrah 3y ago
> Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive work is the result of iterations in tiny steps. I agree 100% > I am definitely of the opinion that given then right circumstances most people could produce something that other people believe is at that sort of level of complexity. This is the "if my grandma had four wheels, she would be a truck" argument and in my experience it is not accurate. A quote from Ratatouille puts it very eloquently: "A great chef could be anyone, but anyone could not be a great chef" > They're not that different to the rest of us I beg to differ. Again, with the caveat of "in my experience", they are very different. Maybe not in ways that would make a great Forbes article, like having superhuman IQ, but for example "having grit" or simply "ability to obsess over the right things" is a key ingredient that most people don't have enough of.
onos 3y ago
I can’t relate to this, as it seems to imply you just don’t believe that really talented people exist and that these people can accomplish things other simply can’t. Doesn’t jive with my experience.
lumost 3y ago
I used to be awe inspired by the jvm code base and other “major” pieces of software. Then one day I realized that these code bases were the product of literally 10s of thousands of people years. It’s not something anyone could do, but often it’s the product of what many can do.
andsoitis 3y ago
> people who make amazing things. They're not that different to the rest of us. Clearly that can’t be true. “Amazing” by definition cannot be done by the average person.
TrackerFF 3y ago
Linux is a good example - Linus literally iterated on it as he was learning stuff in University, with the help of one of his classmate/friend. And IIRC, the very start of it was just printing a stream of characters or numbers which represented the output of parallel/asynchronous task handling. They just kept adding one feature after another, until they felt that it was "done" - but of course kept on building.

mywittyname 3y ago

When I worked at mega corps, I'd see a "new" tech emerged that was always very similar to a software that our company had developed to solve similar issues. I remember terraform getting released and seeing that it was just an inferior version of the Cloud Formation Template generator someone at my company had invented years prior. I've seen this happen so many times and every time, I'm surprised that more businesses don't spin off cool internal projects like this into startups. Hashicorp's market cap is roughly 10% of the market cap of the megacorp I used to work for. And right now, my team is working on an internal project to fill the gaps left by various authentication providers we use. But instead of spinning this off into it's own business, they are just kind of waiting around for someone else to develop a better product so they can buy it instead. It was explained to me that investors generally don't like spinning off internal projects because it can be a distraction, but it does feel like investors are leaving a billion+ dollars on the table. Especially given the absurd P/E multiples software startups enjoy. To circle this comment back, I think a lot of staff engineers are working on the next generation of cool technology right now. But they might be working at boring old companies, like a massive retailer, and eventually that internal project will get replaced by one built by the engineer who decides to venture on their own and replicate what they were building as a stand-alone product.

withinboredom 3y ago
I could have a really cool time-travelling database to sell you, but I can't because I signed away my right to invent. So, if you really want to > built by the engineer who decides to venture on their own and replicate what they were building as a stand-alone product. We need to change our contracts.
- fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
  I think this is the key: employment contracts/ip policies should be designed to encourage spinning off internal projects (that are ‘distractions’ front he core product) as separate business units or as open source projects.
coliveira 3y ago
There is a simple reason why megacorps don't spin off projects: they would need someone with vision to search for these projects and with high authority to proceed on the spin off. They don't have this kind of people, for the obvious reason that it is not their main concern. Executives in any megacorp are 100% busy making the core business a success, and investing time in small projects that may come to nothing is just a distraction. This may just explain why big corporations are just a waste of time and resources, in the long term.
- diceduckmonk 3y ago
  > They don't have this kind of people Because the people with vision and conviction would be running their own startups
- jameshart 3y ago
  Not just that they don't have those people. They also don't have the money. Because most companies are operating with someone else's money. It belongs to the shareholders or the investors or the bank. And they have been entrusted with that money in order to conduct a very particular business venture. If they go off using that money to spin up side-hustles selling engineering tools, they're taking risks with someone else's money to do something they weren't told to do.

glitchc 3y ago

That's an unfair characterization. You are low-balling the creativity, discipline and bureaucracy management ability these individuals bring to the table. The right circumstances are only part of the acquisition. Aptidude and attitude are the other parts.

nonethewiser 3y ago

> Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive work is the result of iterations in tiny steps. I think you are right. Really impressive work is generally the result of a longer journey than you realize. The time and effort put into it is probably underestimated. But my mind immediately tries to think of exceptions (which totally prove the rule). I'm curious if others would agree with this one: Sometimes there are just really great ideas. Minecraft comes to mind. And I don't mean today's Minecraft. I mean the alpha and beta versions which were wildly popular and essentially just an engine and sandbox world with a tiny fraction of the features today's game has. People have recreated that core game many times with fairly trivial code, which is why I attribute this more to "great idea" than long iterative process that most people cant replicate. And a totally anecdotally and subjective reason (although I've heard others express it too). I found the game immediately nostalgic. It was new but it felt old - like it had existed in some form before but had just now taken shape. That to me seems like a great idea. Ironically, I find myself questioning if I underestimated how long Notch took to create it. A cursory search says a week for the initial version, but this timeline shows more like 1 to 1.5 years from nothing to alpha: https://minecraft-timeline.github.io/ https://minecraft-timeline.github.io/ Even still, the fact that the core game can be recreated without too much effort does suggest that that it was more about being a good idea than being difficult to implement. I don't look at Minecraft and think "wow I could never do this." Instead I look at it and think, "Wow. That was a really great idea." Although I suppose you could says that great ideas are an iterative process too. But at that point you have to decouple "really impressive stuff" from "I could never do this".

withinboredom 3y ago
> People have recreated that core game many times with fairly trivial code Yes, because they have something to reference. It was like Notch took a level editor and made it into the game itself. That isn't an easy thing to figure out and takes time. > Sometimes there are just really great ideas. Ideas are easy and usually it's really stupid ideas that turn out to be great ideas. Who would think that an FPS level editor would be a good idea? Or a text box that anyone can edit on a profile page would be popular (facebook)? There are not great ideas, just ideas that are executed well.

timacles 3y ago

The thing that separates those guys from everyone else is simple. Its stamina. No there isn't some higher level of understanding or deep perception. Every one of the all time great programmers had 1 exact thing in common with no exceptions. Stamina. You will not find a single outlier. They did their craft every day, for many hours, year after year. So sure, any of us could have taken the individual small steps. But when you look at a whole body of work, you'll see they're cranking through these "small steps" like the Juggernaut running through walls for decades

sibeliuss 3y ago
This is the answer. There's certainly ridiculous talent (especially with ideas), but in my experience it always comes down to stamina stretched through time. Cool things get built by people that stick it out, and recruit others to do the same. And also know _exactly_ when to exit to pursue something new (but that's a different subject).
- tltimeline2 3y ago
  Interesting, is the ability to know when to exit a prerequisite? I would think there's a distribution between those you spoke of and some that just picked one thing and went forever.
  - sibeliuss 3y ago
    Well what I mean is there's an ability to see precisely when just enough is done -- no more, no less -- before one can hand things over and exit with sanity and / or dignity. It goes hand in hand. Many work very hard and quit before _the_ critical thing is done, which in a sense forfeits all prior work; others continue working and working and burn out. The best understand something about timing, almost in an intuitive sense. I've seen it again and again, and it's impressive.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
biscuits1 3y ago

emrah 3y ago

> Something I learned relatively late in my career was that really impressive work is the result of iterations in tiny steps. I agree 100% > I am definitely of the opinion that given then right circumstances most people could produce something that other people believe is at that sort of level of complexity. This is the "if my grandma had four wheels, she would be a truck" argument and in my experience it is not accurate. A quote from Ratatouille puts it very eloquently: "A great chef could be anyone, but anyone could not be a great chef" > They're not that different to the rest of us I beg to differ. Again, with the caveat of "in my experience", they are very different. Maybe not in ways that would make a great Forbes article, like having superhuman IQ, but for example "having grit" or simply "ability to obsess over the right things" is a key ingredient that most people don't have enough of.

onos 3y ago

I can’t relate to this, as it seems to imply you just don’t believe that really talented people exist and that these people can accomplish things other simply can’t. Doesn’t jive with my experience.

lumost 3y ago

I used to be awe inspired by the jvm code base and other “major” pieces of software. Then one day I realized that these code bases were the product of literally 10s of thousands of people years. It’s not something anyone could do, but often it’s the product of what many can do.

andsoitis 3y ago

> people who make amazing things. They're not that different to the rest of us. Clearly that can’t be true. “Amazing” by definition cannot be done by the average person.

TrackerFF 3y ago

Linux is a good example - Linus literally iterated on it as he was learning stuff in University, with the help of one of his classmate/friend. And IIRC, the very start of it was just printing a stream of characters or numbers which represented the output of parallel/asynchronous task handling. They just kept adding one feature after another, until they felt that it was "done" - but of course kept on building.