4 ms·

The Startup Developer Superstar Detection Quiz

24 points by __ 19y ago

iamwil 19y ago
I remember when Guy Kawasaki started blogging, he made a point about having short, bulleted, easy to digest posts to read. And while that's certainly easier on the readers, it's like eating a lots of junk food: too much of it often leaves me feeling full, yet discontent. And I wasn't sure why at first. While bulleted points are good in moderation, it's one step away from superstar detection quizzes. Reminds me of quizzes in magazines like Maxim and Cosmo. "Are you having enough hot sex?" quizzes. I find myself hungering for a good readably long article with new information and good support that makes me think when I see too many of these on hacker news.
- YoavShapira 19y ago
  To each their own, I guess. I like these bullet-pointy articles with quick tips because they're easier to read quickly. There's a place for research paper-length articles as well, of course, but the two don't compete with each other.
- dshah 19y ago
  Fair point. I'm glad I didn't use my original title idea: 13 Ways To Tell If Your Lover Is Cheating, But 14 Ways To Tell If You'd Make A Good Developer For A Startup
jajoneill 19y ago
Well put. Even a basic quiz like this highlights the difficulty to hire for startups where every idea and effort of every individual impacts success (positive or negative).
brk 19y ago
For some reason test #6 (You've been impressed with someone else's code at some point in your life) reminded me of this old PG essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html :)
edw519 19y ago
"1. You're more of a pragmatist than a perfectionist. [Yes/No]" I've always had a problem with this one. Not really sure why. I hate the word "perfectionist", but I think that's what I am. Perhaps "precisionist" or "maximizer" would be a better word. Once I started insisting that my app was just right, I was able to move up to the next level of "hackerdom". Some days I write a thousand lines of code and the next day I will agonize over one little construct because deep in my gut, I know it's not what it needs to be. I don't mind being this way. Of course, I understand the downside of this thinking. You don't want to obsess so much that you never release. But you don't want to release and come back and fix bad stuff too much, either. Experience, and a gut feeling, oughta tell you how far to push. One of the things that made me feel much better about this was reading about Woz's obsession with making everything just right when he designed the Apple II. Chapter 3 of "Founders at Work" by Jessica Livingston. Which was Woz, the perfectionist or the pragmatist? (If you don't have the book and haven't read it yet, must reading for all aspiring superstars... http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html)
- __ 19y ago
  "Which was Woz, the perfectionist or the pragmatist?" Over time, I've learned that it's not always an either-or thing. Many -- perhaps most -- people are both, depending on the activity. I'm a perfectionist about writing (code and natural language), but I'm certainly not a perfectionist about fashion or cooking, for example.
  - apathy 19y ago
    Another way to look at it -- "the best is the enemy of the good". Which side of that battle you take will depend upon your desired outcome and time frame.
- antirez 19y ago
  Yeah this question is very complex, but actually to be perfectionist in the design stage is sign of lameness, but in a particular way: good design is the fruit of sacrifice of given things in favor of other things, some kind of engineer-alike-thinking want to get everything at the same time ending with a complex project that's hard to get right. On the other hand good programmers are perfectionists when they actually are writing code. Another sign of smart programmers related to this aspect is that often I saw this good programmers open accepting probabilistic solutions that are good enough even if not perfect if for the kind of problem they are trying to solve this is enough and will work. Less experienced programmers fear this kind of approach because they don't think about the actual result and are not secure enough of their ideas I guess. What is interesting is that there are a lot of times where doing things good enough in algorithms will make it O(N) instead of O(N^2), or in the other hand it can make the code simpler by a factor 10, so this ability is very important.
imsteve 19y ago
My additions, for super-coders: 1. Have, more than once, wished to stop time, exit society and live on an isolated island so you can figure out this incredible algorithm that you know will change and amaze the world. 2. Has grasped the importance of concentrating for long contiguous periods of time to work out very deep problems. Probably worked out a very strict, detailed set of priorities to ensure that this can happen on demand. 3. Focuses more on whether he can beat the hardest unsolved problems than bragging that he is the best coder. Realizes that such a definitive metric doesn't really exist. The point is that by focusing on the science itself, you can always be challenged and won't be held back by the satisfaction of being better than some other bum. Although, this doesn't mean that he doesn't have a strong ego internally, just knows that it can only be proved through code. 4. Has some deep-seated inspiration. 5. If forced to stop working on at least something incredible for more than a few weeks, he will go crazy with a large machine gun. If he hasn't had this desire for a good while then he probably hasn't put in the effort to become great. This holds until the day he gets burt out..
- ardit33 19y ago
  Sorry, but your list looks like is searching for psychotic people. I know that some great coders are very passionate about what they do, who borderline into obsession. I also know, that the best coder/engineer I have ever met, is married, very balanced, works 9-5:30, so he can be home with his kids, and is super super productive, and a very great guy to be around.
  - imsteve 19y ago
    Honestly, he doesn't sound like he'd be the best for a startup. Not the best for an OSS project (which are always done on your own time) either. Certainly not going to make any breakthroughs in mathematics. He's going to live a wonderfully marginal life. He may be the best around, but what's he going to amount too? Nothing different than a million other good engineers working their asses off in some giant corp in china. I'm completely certain that some of the best painters where psychotic too. Go ahead and fault them for it if that's what you like to do.
apathy 19y ago
I was going to rant about this, but their company actually has something resembling an original premise, and principals from MIT, as opposed to the usual social-network-rails-2.0 crap. And it is a very engaging ad which appears to have homed in on a large concentration of its target audience. Good stuff, and well played -- a case study in low-effort, high-payoff marketing in an unorthodox capacity. Smart guys.
- dshah 19y ago
  Thanks, I think. :) <self-serving-crap> For the record, we're a bit different from many startups in that we believe in "User Generated Revenue" (what was previously known as "sales"). We're growing revenue (not traffic) at double-digit rates a month and having a pretty good time with it. And yes, we have a bit of an MIT slant. Not just both the founders, but 7 (over 25%) of the team has MIT roots. This could be partly because we're located right in Kendall square too -- but we like to think it's because even smart people like to make money. </self-serving-crap>
bayareaguy 19y ago
I think I'd consider hiring someone with laser focus who answered no to all but #7 and #14. Actually, come to think of it some of the better windows programmers I've met are that way.
wallflower 19y ago
I don't interview usually but when meeting a fellow programmer - my favorite question is what is your title - e.g. if they say Software Engineer - i ask them if they truly believe software can be engineered.. it's a way to open them up - i like to hear their philosophical views on the construction of software.

24 points by __ 19y ago

I remember when Guy Kawasaki started blogging, he made a point about having short, bulleted, easy to digest posts to read. And while that's certainly easier on the readers, it's like eating a lots of junk food: too much of it often leaves me feeling full, yet discontent. And I wasn't sure why at first. While bulleted points are good in moderation, it's one step away from superstar detection quizzes. Reminds me of quizzes in magazines like Maxim and Cosmo. "Are you having enough hot sex?" quizzes. I find myself hungering for a good readably long article with new information and good support that makes me think when I see too many of these on hacker news.

YoavShapira 19y ago
To each their own, I guess. I like these bullet-pointy articles with quick tips because they're easier to read quickly. There's a place for research paper-length articles as well, of course, but the two don't compete with each other.
dshah 19y ago
Fair point. I'm glad I didn't use my original title idea: 13 Ways To Tell If Your Lover Is Cheating, But 14 Ways To Tell If You'd Make A Good Developer For A Startup

jajoneill 19y ago

Well put. Even a basic quiz like this highlights the difficulty to hire for startups where every idea and effort of every individual impacts success (positive or negative).

brk 19y ago

For some reason test #6 (You've been impressed with someone else's code at some point in your life) reminded me of this old PG essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gh.html :)

edw519 19y ago

"1. You're more of a pragmatist than a perfectionist. [Yes/No]" I've always had a problem with this one. Not really sure why. I hate the word "perfectionist", but I think that's what I am. Perhaps "precisionist" or "maximizer" would be a better word. Once I started insisting that my app was just right, I was able to move up to the next level of "hackerdom". Some days I write a thousand lines of code and the next day I will agonize over one little construct because deep in my gut, I know it's not what it needs to be. I don't mind being this way. Of course, I understand the downside of this thinking. You don't want to obsess so much that you never release. But you don't want to release and come back and fix bad stuff too much, either. Experience, and a gut feeling, oughta tell you how far to push. One of the things that made me feel much better about this was reading about Woz's obsession with making everything just right when he designed the Apple II. Chapter 3 of "Founders at Work" by Jessica Livingston. Which was Woz, the perfectionist or the pragmatist? (If you don't have the book and haven't read it yet, must reading for all aspiring superstars... http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html http://www.foundersatwork.com/steve-wozniak.html)

__ 19y ago
"Which was Woz, the perfectionist or the pragmatist?" Over time, I've learned that it's not always an either-or thing. Many -- perhaps most -- people are both, depending on the activity. I'm a perfectionist about writing (code and natural language), but I'm certainly not a perfectionist about fashion or cooking, for example.
- apathy 19y ago
  Another way to look at it -- "the best is the enemy of the good". Which side of that battle you take will depend upon your desired outcome and time frame.
antirez 19y ago
Yeah this question is very complex, but actually to be perfectionist in the design stage is sign of lameness, but in a particular way: good design is the fruit of sacrifice of given things in favor of other things, some kind of engineer-alike-thinking want to get everything at the same time ending with a complex project that's hard to get right. On the other hand good programmers are perfectionists when they actually are writing code. Another sign of smart programmers related to this aspect is that often I saw this good programmers open accepting probabilistic solutions that are good enough even if not perfect if for the kind of problem they are trying to solve this is enough and will work. Less experienced programmers fear this kind of approach because they don't think about the actual result and are not secure enough of their ideas I guess. What is interesting is that there are a lot of times where doing things good enough in algorithms will make it O(N) instead of O(N^2), or in the other hand it can make the code simpler by a factor 10, so this ability is very important.

imsteve 19y ago

My additions, for super-coders: 1. Have, more than once, wished to stop time, exit society and live on an isolated island so you can figure out this incredible algorithm that you know will change and amaze the world. 2. Has grasped the importance of concentrating for long contiguous periods of time to work out very deep problems. Probably worked out a very strict, detailed set of priorities to ensure that this can happen on demand. 3. Focuses more on whether he can beat the hardest unsolved problems than bragging that he is the best coder. Realizes that such a definitive metric doesn't really exist. The point is that by focusing on the science itself, you can always be challenged and won't be held back by the satisfaction of being better than some other bum. Although, this doesn't mean that he doesn't have a strong ego internally, just knows that it can only be proved through code. 4. Has some deep-seated inspiration. 5. If forced to stop working on at least something incredible for more than a few weeks, he will go crazy with a large machine gun. If he hasn't had this desire for a good while then he probably hasn't put in the effort to become great. This holds until the day he gets burt out..

ardit33 19y ago
Sorry, but your list looks like is searching for psychotic people. I know that some great coders are very passionate about what they do, who borderline into obsession. I also know, that the best coder/engineer I have ever met, is married, very balanced, works 9-5:30, so he can be home with his kids, and is super super productive, and a very great guy to be around.
- imsteve 19y ago
  Honestly, he doesn't sound like he'd be the best for a startup. Not the best for an OSS project (which are always done on your own time) either. Certainly not going to make any breakthroughs in mathematics. He's going to live a wonderfully marginal life. He may be the best around, but what's he going to amount too? Nothing different than a million other good engineers working their asses off in some giant corp in china. I'm completely certain that some of the best painters where psychotic too. Go ahead and fault them for it if that's what you like to do.

apathy 19y ago

I was going to rant about this, but their company actually has something resembling an original premise, and principals from MIT, as opposed to the usual social-network-rails-2.0 crap. And it is a very engaging ad which appears to have homed in on a large concentration of its target audience. Good stuff, and well played -- a case study in low-effort, high-payoff marketing in an unorthodox capacity. Smart guys.

dshah 19y ago
Thanks, I think. :) <self-serving-crap> For the record, we're a bit different from many startups in that we believe in "User Generated Revenue" (what was previously known as "sales"). We're growing revenue (not traffic) at double-digit rates a month and having a pretty good time with it. And yes, we have a bit of an MIT slant. Not just both the founders, but 7 (over 25%) of the team has MIT roots. This could be partly because we're located right in Kendall square too -- but we like to think it's because even smart people like to make money. </self-serving-crap>

bayareaguy 19y ago

I think I'd consider hiring someone with laser focus who answered no to all but #7 and #14. Actually, come to think of it some of the better windows programmers I've met are that way.

wallflower 19y ago

I don't interview usually but when meeting a fellow programmer - my favorite question is what is your title - e.g. if they say Software Engineer - i ask them if they truly believe software can be engineered.. it's a way to open them up - i like to hear their philosophical views on the construction of software.