9 ms·

Paul Graham On Two Kinds of Programmers and Painters

75 points by rams 17y ago

tripngroove 17y ago
I posit the transcriber interpreted Cézanne phonetically.
- efaith 17y ago
  Heh, that's what I came to the comments to say, too.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
gjm11 17y ago
Maciej Ceglowski, who is posting in this thread but evidently too modest to blow his own trumpet, wrote what seems like the definitive response to Paul Graham On Painting back in 2005: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm .
- Alex3917 17y ago
  Definitive? It doesn't even address the ideas put forth in the essay.
  - pvg 17y ago
    Which ideas does it not address? The core idea of the original (hey, it's in the title) is that hackers are like painters. The argument of Ceglowski's response, whether you agree with it or not, is that they aren't.
    - Alex3917 17y ago
      "The core idea of the original is that hackers are like painters." No it's not. This is wrong for the same reason that idlewords is wrong when he says that the thesis of H&P is: "Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers." This isn't a thesis that pg is trying to prove. Rather, it's a source of ideas. That is, "Because hackers are makers rather than scientists, the right place to look for metaphors is not in the sciences, but among other kinds of makers. What else can painting teach us about hacking?" The essay doesn't even identify what those ideas are, let alone try to disprove them. All he's attacking is the source of the ideas. That's like saying Newton's theory of gravity is wrong because sitting under apple trees is gay.
      - pvg 17y ago
        "No it's not." Yes it is. Because that's what it says, as opposed to what you'd like to believe it said. In fact you quoted its fundamental point right there - "Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers." How is this not equating hackers and painters? How is the rest of the verbiage not 'a thesis he is trying to prove' but rather 'a source of ideas'. The writing directly contradicts what you are saying.
        Alex3917 17y ago
        "X and Y are both instances of Z, so let's use Y and Z as a source of ideas about X." This pattern is basically repeated in every single paragraph, e.g. * The reputations of hackers probably have a large random component introduced by fashion, as happens with artists. * In hacking as with painting, it’s best to start by sketching * Both software and paintings are intended for a human audience, so both hackers must have empathy to do good work. The essay was written for the benefit of hackers, so if you want to attack the ideas in the essay, a 'good' argument might be that hacking does not require empathy. As opposed to saying that the idea that the best paintings were done between 1430 and 1500 is just some guy's opinion, which adds nothing. Now if you wanted to challenge the ideas about art as a way of challenging the ideas about hacking then that would at least be interesting, but just nitpicking about art history is lame.
- pg 17y ago
  I never bothered to refute that at the time, but as a matter of fact practically everything he says there is mistaken. E.g. that no one painted alla prima till recent times, when arguably the most famous exponent of this style is Franz Hals, who worked in the early 1600s. It's a strange situation. If someone writes an essay attacking you, you either have to respond, in which case you're letting someone else pick your topics, or you have to ignore it, in which case people who don't know any better may be convinced by it. Though I'm not willing to use up an essay to refute someone, I will in a comment thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=984217 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=984217 One thing I still wonder about is whether this guy actually believes what's he's saying, or whether he's deliberately trolling. He seems reasonably smart. How could he not have heard of Franz Hals? On the other hand, who would try to keep a troll going for 4 years?
  - idlewords 17y ago
    Frans Hals is actually my favorite painter, so if people take nothing else away from this thread, I would urge them to go check that shit out. The exact quote I was responding to in my essay: "When oil paint replaced tempera in the fifteenth century, it helped painters to deal with difficult subjects like the human figure because, unlike tempera, oil can be blended and overpainted." In support of which you now cite... Frans Hals, a sui generis painter who worked two hundred years later. I'm surprised you chose him over El Greco, who at least is within two centuries of the time period under discussion. It's been entertaining watching you try to walk your various misstatements about art history back in this thread, but I am somewhat surprised by this habit of calling people who poke holes in your writing "trolls", given that you are the author of a celebrated taxonomy of online argument that places name-callers among the lowest of the low. Weenis.
    - pg 17y ago
      Actually Franz Hals was my counterexample to your statement that no one painted alla prima till the 19th century. There are lots of others I could have picked (Fragonard for example) but I figured the most famous example of the style would do. My support for the statement that oil paint allowed painters to blend and overpaint is the example I gave earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento http://www.escholarship.org/editions/data/13030/d9/ft1d5nb0d9/figures/ft1d5nb0d9_00061.jpg http://www.escholarship.org/editions/data/13030/d9/ft1d5nb0d... Van Eyck, who was such an early user of oil paint that for much of history he was considered the inventor of oil painting, is also one of the standard examples of overpainting to correct mistakes. How much more conclusive evidence could one want?
EAMiller 17y ago
"Cézanne could not draw, he makes the same drawing mistakes that every one makes in introductory drawing classes." This is not the case. Cézanne could draw exceedingly well. Drawing != photographic representation.
- martian 17y ago
  Yes, Cezanne could paint brilliantly: http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne
- pg 17y ago
  Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.
  - foldr 17y ago
    Right, but saying they're mistakes implies that he drew that way because he couldn't have rendered if he'd wanted to (your "Occam's razor" explanation). I don't know if that was meant to be tongue in cheek, but it seems kind of unlikely to me.
  - idlewords 17y ago
    Dude, don't make me have to write another essay. http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&vo=&vl=&owner=&isKiosk=&SIZE=FULL http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&#3...
    - huntse 17y ago
      That is a truly spectacular drawing. Astonishing.
      - euccastro 17y ago
        You're being ironic, aren't you? As a sketch that may well do the trick, but as a demonstration of drawing ability it's abysmal.
kingkawn 17y ago
cmon pg, your interpretation of Cezanne is like Caravaggio talkin about Lisp.
- pg 17y ago
  Can you give an example of something I said that you think is false? Or is this just a sort of reverse argument from authority?
  - huntse 17y ago
    Well the claim that Cezanne couldn't draw is pretty obviously contradicted by his sketches, especially when you look at them "in the flesh".
    - idlewords 17y ago
      Cezanne had at least six years of classical drawing instruction, where you begin by drawing various geometric forms, move on to making sketches of plaster statuary, and then finally draw from the model. It's a highly technical form of training akin to doing scales all day long on a musical instrument. I'm sure there's a folder in some archive in Aix full of extremely boring and careful studies he did at the time. I've linked the one example I could easily find online above. Saying Cézanne couldn't draw is a glorious form of missing the point, like saying Stravinsky couldn't hold a tune.
      - galactus 17y ago
        There are perhaps other qualities in Cezanne's paintings, but PG is far from being the only person who considers Cezanne's drawing skills quite deficient.
  - idlewords 17y ago
    False statements you have made about art: "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed." (easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up). "What made oil paint so exciting, when it first became popular in the fifteenth century, was that you could actually make the finished work from the prototype." This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century. It was a very expensive medium requiring careful preparatory work, sketches, and so on. "Most painters start with a blurry sketch and gradually refine it." - completely unsupported. "Line drawings are in fact the most difficult visual medium" - yes, carving marble is much easier. "When oil paint replaced tempera in the fifteenth century, it helped painters to deal with difficult subjects like the human figure because, unlike tempera, oil can be blended and overpainted." - again, this is how oil paint was used much later. At the time it was painted in thin, transparent layers that did not allow the kind of reworking you learned four hundred years later in art class. And now we have 'Cézanne can't draw" to add to the list. Many of your other statements about art fall more in the 'not even wrong' category - fatuous generalizations based on your own tastes, but presented as deep insights about the world. So it is a little disingenuous of you to keep asking for people to point to specific places where you are wrong. The wrong is diffusely and uniformly distributed.
chipsy 17y ago
I think it's important to recognize that the creativity/implementation distinction isn't going to be universal across all your skills, even within something as seemingly specific as programming or drawing. Maybe you have an easy time reasoning about mutable data structures, or maybe you are particularly able at capturing light and shadow. If you can recognize which things are strengths and deliberately extend all of the things you are good at into an overall creative vision - a cumulation of your ability that takes those strengths to the "next level" - then you'll go a lot farther than you will just trying to shore up the weaknesses. (That said, you can become good at just about anything with carefully cultivated passion and a dash of smarts.)
ThinkWriteMute 17y ago
What in the world is wrong with his style sheet? Why is the entire post emphasized?!
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  The emphasized part is a quote. It just happens to be a long blocky quote, so it looks merely like a bold post.
andrewcooke 17y ago
seems to me that, if this makes any sense, the interesting question is: why can't you have both? given that selection for "great art" is over a large number of people, why can't you find someone that is gifted in both areas? perhaps one somehow counteracts the other (for example, you are praised for "mechanical skills" and so never learn "abstract thinking")? or perhaps the market values the combination of "poor mechanical skills" with "great abstract skills" because it places the latter in strong relief? or perhaps you do get people who are both (gerhard richter is the best example i can think of), but that's not enough to meet demand? (or meet fashion?) or perhaps the numbers just don't work out - the population is just large enough for one or the other, but not both? or, finally, perhaps the whole basis of the post is, in fact, false?
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  Yeah, Paul is talking up his ass. Afraid I don't know enough about programmers or painters to spout names, but in any other artistic medium you've got a mix of all types. I'll use film as my example because film's a medium in which you have a hundred people working together, and very elaborate roles evolved to let people do exactly what they want to do. Some directors function as merely directors. They decide what they like, and they have other people execute. But other directors can and do insist on controlling other parts of the creative process. I'm not a fan of James Cameron, but the guy writes, directs, and edits his movies, and he's very involved in set design as well. Some props he insists on making himself because he doesn't trust anybody else to do it right. So there's a guy who knows what he wants to do, and is also capable of the incredible technical feats required to pull it off.
erikb85 17y ago
First Idea in that statement: There are many people who are good implementers or good designers. Only a small group can do both. Second Idea: Normally companies employ the good implementer as an programmer. Third Idea: There is another person who designs the product, a product manager. Maybe it is because english is not my mothertounge, but should the conclusion not be as I understood it "U should pay the programmer to design" but "companies employ good designers as product managers"? Than U don't have any problem with a designer who cannot implement and an implementer who cannot design. PG, what do I miss here that U think a company should make people to do both jobs, if they are most likely just good at one of both?
Kirby 17y ago
Of course, in reality, most people aren't exactly these two extremes, great implementer and great innovator. Everyone has both traits in different amounts, and if you have a functioning team, they can be split up unevenly. In this way of looking at things, I'll freely admit to being more of an implementer. If someone asks for what they want, I'll do my best to make the software do it in a way that's efficient and delights the user. Given vague instructions, I'll do my best, but with mixed results. But when I team up with someone who always has new ideas - I can actually sort through them, figure out which ones will work, which ones will meet the goals, and synthesize them into great product. Most people can't do that with their own ideas. I think the original quote - and it's short, not a full essay, so this criticism is mildly unfair - elevates the innovator too much over the implementer. When in reality, you win when you have both, that know their own strengths and limitations, and are grateful for the other. I produce better work when I pair up with an innovator, and so does he or she. And the two of us will dominate over a dual-innovator team. Also, realize implicitly in everything Paul Graham says, you can add the words, "For a startup technology company." That's what he knows, that's what he values. There's a lot of work out there that needs implementers, and innovators would be frustrated, unsuccessful, and miserable at. Don't feel threatened if you're not Paul Graham's Ideal Entrepreneur/Programmer. I'm not. I'll never be extremely rich, most likely, but I'm happy, good at my job, valued by my company. I say this because opinions like this caused me a _lot_ of self doubt in my early twenties, and they turned out to not be the accurate predictor of DOOM that I feared. If you're smart, and willing to do a good day's work, success is out there - not at a company run by someone like Graham, but he wouldn't have success at a company for you either.
dgallagher 17y ago
He was terribly frustrated he was like this guy who had all kinds of ideas, but he couldn't articulate them with his hand. I've experienced this. Since several years ago I've had tons of idea's for startups I'd like to create. Problem was, I had a business/finance/network engineer background and had no way of actually building anything. It's extremely difficult being stuck like that. Ambitions are polluted by your own limitations. Three years ago a few close friends and I decided to develop a video game using XNA for Xbox 360. We were three programmers, two artists, and myself who handled game design (not a coder). It was a simple game. Basically, you were a guy on a board with a bat and would melee with others, trying to knock them off the board. It was sorta like Nintendo Hockey crossed with Super Smash Brothers in a top-down 2D view. Long story short, the programmers lost interest and the project died after two years of part-time work. The two artists and I were more or less helpless in trying to finish the game, so we had to abandon it. This was a year ago and I was frustrated. I came to the realization that in order to build something, you need to have the idea, and you need to have a means of building it. So I ordered a bunch of books and started to teach myself how to program. Thats enabled me to work on a new startup. Now I can see things much clearer having the ability to write code. That frustration of not being able to build your ideas, or having their destiny out of your control, is completely gone. It's empowering. This quote really rings true to me now: The best programmers are the ones that combine in one head both the ability to translate ideas into code and having the ideas. Just like the best artists have both the ability ... (have) a great hand.
lucifer 17y ago
If only hacker sketches on a napkin looked like this: http://tinyurl.com/y9b5n2d http://tinyurl.com/y9b5n2d
garnet7 17y ago
> When you put the stuff on the wall in a room full of other paintings, it looks like there's a spotlight shining on his paintings and other ones have been sprayed with a light coating of mud. What is this due to? Cezanne's skill with color? Or something else?

75 points by rams 17y ago

tripngroove 17y ago

I posit the transcriber interpreted Cézanne phonetically.

efaith 17y ago
Heh, that's what I came to the comments to say, too.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

gjm11 17y ago

Maciej Ceglowski, who is posting in this thread but evidently too modest to blow his own trumpet, wrote what seems like the definitive response to Paul Graham On Painting back in 2005: http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm .

Alex3917 17y ago
Definitive? It doesn't even address the ideas put forth in the essay.
- pvg 17y ago
  Which ideas does it not address? The core idea of the original (hey, it's in the title) is that hackers are like painters. The argument of Ceglowski's response, whether you agree with it or not, is that they aren't.
  - Alex3917 17y ago
    "The core idea of the original is that hackers are like painters." No it's not. This is wrong for the same reason that idlewords is wrong when he says that the thesis of H&P is: "Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers." This isn't a thesis that pg is trying to prove. Rather, it's a source of ideas. That is, "Because hackers are makers rather than scientists, the right place to look for metaphors is not in the sciences, but among other kinds of makers. What else can painting teach us about hacking?" The essay doesn't even identify what those ideas are, let alone try to disprove them. All he's attacking is the source of the ideas. That's like saying Newton's theory of gravity is wrong because sitting under apple trees is gay.
    - pvg 17y ago
      "No it's not." Yes it is. Because that's what it says, as opposed to what you'd like to believe it said. In fact you quoted its fundamental point right there - "Of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers." How is this not equating hackers and painters? How is the rest of the verbiage not 'a thesis he is trying to prove' but rather 'a source of ideas'. The writing directly contradicts what you are saying.
      - Alex3917 17y ago
        "X and Y are both instances of Z, so let's use Y and Z as a source of ideas about X." This pattern is basically repeated in every single paragraph, e.g. * The reputations of hackers probably have a large random component introduced by fashion, as happens with artists. * In hacking as with painting, it’s best to start by sketching * Both software and paintings are intended for a human audience, so both hackers must have empathy to do good work. The essay was written for the benefit of hackers, so if you want to attack the ideas in the essay, a 'good' argument might be that hacking does not require empathy. As opposed to saying that the idea that the best paintings were done between 1430 and 1500 is just some guy's opinion, which adds nothing. Now if you wanted to challenge the ideas about art as a way of challenging the ideas about hacking then that would at least be interesting, but just nitpicking about art history is lame.
pg 17y ago
I never bothered to refute that at the time, but as a matter of fact practically everything he says there is mistaken. E.g. that no one painted alla prima till recent times, when arguably the most famous exponent of this style is Franz Hals, who worked in the early 1600s. It's a strange situation. If someone writes an essay attacking you, you either have to respond, in which case you're letting someone else pick your topics, or you have to ignore it, in which case people who don't know any better may be convinced by it. Though I'm not willing to use up an essay to refute someone, I will in a comment thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=984217 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=984217 One thing I still wonder about is whether this guy actually believes what's he's saying, or whether he's deliberately trolling. He seems reasonably smart. How could he not have heard of Franz Hals? On the other hand, who would try to keep a troll going for 4 years?
- idlewords 17y ago
  Frans Hals is actually my favorite painter, so if people take nothing else away from this thread, I would urge them to go check that shit out. The exact quote I was responding to in my essay: "When oil paint replaced tempera in the fifteenth century, it helped painters to deal with difficult subjects like the human figure because, unlike tempera, oil can be blended and overpainted." In support of which you now cite... Frans Hals, a sui generis painter who worked two hundred years later. I'm surprised you chose him over El Greco, who at least is within two centuries of the time period under discussion. It's been entertaining watching you try to walk your various misstatements about art history back in this thread, but I am somewhat surprised by this habit of calling people who poke holes in your writing "trolls", given that you are the author of a celebrated taxonomy of online argument that places name-callers among the lowest of the low. Weenis.
  - pg 17y ago
    Actually Franz Hals was my counterexample to your statement that no one painted alla prima till the 19th century. There are lots of others I could have picked (Fragonard for example) but I figured the most famous example of the style would do. My support for the statement that oil paint allowed painters to blend and overpaint is the example I gave earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentimento http://www.escholarship.org/editions/data/13030/d9/ft1d5nb0d9/figures/ft1d5nb0d9_00061.jpg http://www.escholarship.org/editions/data/13030/d9/ft1d5nb0d... Van Eyck, who was such an early user of oil paint that for much of history he was considered the inventor of oil painting, is also one of the standard examples of overpainting to correct mistakes. How much more conclusive evidence could one want?

EAMiller 17y ago

"Cézanne could not draw, he makes the same drawing mistakes that every one makes in introductory drawing classes." This is not the case. Cézanne could draw exceedingly well. Drawing != photographic representation.

martian 17y ago
Yes, Cezanne could paint brilliantly: http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne http://images.google.com/images?q=cezanne
pg 17y ago
Obviously in this context I'm talking about drawing in the sense of rendering.
- foldr 17y ago
  Right, but saying they're mistakes implies that he drew that way because he couldn't have rendered if he'd wanted to (your "Occam's razor" explanation). I don't know if that was meant to be tongue in cheek, but it seems kind of unlikely to me.
- idlewords 17y ago
  Dude, don't make me have to write another essay. http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&vo=&vl=&owner=&isKiosk=&SIZE=FULL http://www.frenchdrawings.org/search.php?dwg=460&vol=&#3...
  - huntse 17y ago
    That is a truly spectacular drawing. Astonishing.
    - euccastro 17y ago
      You're being ironic, aren't you? As a sketch that may well do the trick, but as a demonstration of drawing ability it's abysmal.

kingkawn 17y ago

cmon pg, your interpretation of Cezanne is like Caravaggio talkin about Lisp.

pg 17y ago
Can you give an example of something I said that you think is false? Or is this just a sort of reverse argument from authority?
- huntse 17y ago
  Well the claim that Cezanne couldn't draw is pretty obviously contradicted by his sketches, especially when you look at them "in the flesh".
  - idlewords 17y ago
    Cezanne had at least six years of classical drawing instruction, where you begin by drawing various geometric forms, move on to making sketches of plaster statuary, and then finally draw from the model. It's a highly technical form of training akin to doing scales all day long on a musical instrument. I'm sure there's a folder in some archive in Aix full of extremely boring and careful studies he did at the time. I've linked the one example I could easily find online above. Saying Cézanne couldn't draw is a glorious form of missing the point, like saying Stravinsky couldn't hold a tune.
    - galactus 17y ago
      There are perhaps other qualities in Cezanne's paintings, but PG is far from being the only person who considers Cezanne's drawing skills quite deficient.
- idlewords 17y ago
  False statements you have made about art: "The paintings made between 1430 and 1500 are still unsurpassed." (easy refutation - go to sistine chapel, look up). "What made oil paint so exciting, when it first became popular in the fifteenth century, was that you could actually make the finished work from the prototype." This is not how people painted with oil until the 19th century. It was a very expensive medium requiring careful preparatory work, sketches, and so on. "Most painters start with a blurry sketch and gradually refine it." - completely unsupported. "Line drawings are in fact the most difficult visual medium" - yes, carving marble is much easier. "When oil paint replaced tempera in the fifteenth century, it helped painters to deal with difficult subjects like the human figure because, unlike tempera, oil can be blended and overpainted." - again, this is how oil paint was used much later. At the time it was painted in thin, transparent layers that did not allow the kind of reworking you learned four hundred years later in art class. And now we have 'Cézanne can't draw" to add to the list. Many of your other statements about art fall more in the 'not even wrong' category - fatuous generalizations based on your own tastes, but presented as deep insights about the world. So it is a little disingenuous of you to keep asking for people to point to specific places where you are wrong. The wrong is diffusely and uniformly distributed.

chipsy 17y ago

I think it's important to recognize that the creativity/implementation distinction isn't going to be universal across all your skills, even within something as seemingly specific as programming or drawing. Maybe you have an easy time reasoning about mutable data structures, or maybe you are particularly able at capturing light and shadow. If you can recognize which things are strengths and deliberately extend all of the things you are good at into an overall creative vision - a cumulation of your ability that takes those strengths to the "next level" - then you'll go a lot farther than you will just trying to shore up the weaknesses. (That said, you can become good at just about anything with carefully cultivated passion and a dash of smarts.)

ThinkWriteMute 17y ago

What in the world is wrong with his style sheet? Why is the entire post emphasized?!

zimbabwe 17y ago
The emphasized part is a quote. It just happens to be a long blocky quote, so it looks merely like a bold post.

andrewcooke 17y ago

seems to me that, if this makes any sense, the interesting question is: why can't you have both? given that selection for "great art" is over a large number of people, why can't you find someone that is gifted in both areas? perhaps one somehow counteracts the other (for example, you are praised for "mechanical skills" and so never learn "abstract thinking")? or perhaps the market values the combination of "poor mechanical skills" with "great abstract skills" because it places the latter in strong relief? or perhaps you do get people who are both (gerhard richter is the best example i can think of), but that's not enough to meet demand? (or meet fashion?) or perhaps the numbers just don't work out - the population is just large enough for one or the other, but not both? or, finally, perhaps the whole basis of the post is, in fact, false?

zimbabwe 17y ago
Yeah, Paul is talking up his ass. Afraid I don't know enough about programmers or painters to spout names, but in any other artistic medium you've got a mix of all types. I'll use film as my example because film's a medium in which you have a hundred people working together, and very elaborate roles evolved to let people do exactly what they want to do. Some directors function as merely directors. They decide what they like, and they have other people execute. But other directors can and do insist on controlling other parts of the creative process. I'm not a fan of James Cameron, but the guy writes, directs, and edits his movies, and he's very involved in set design as well. Some props he insists on making himself because he doesn't trust anybody else to do it right. So there's a guy who knows what he wants to do, and is also capable of the incredible technical feats required to pull it off.

erikb85 17y ago

First Idea in that statement: There are many people who are good implementers or good designers. Only a small group can do both. Second Idea: Normally companies employ the good implementer as an programmer. Third Idea: There is another person who designs the product, a product manager. Maybe it is because english is not my mothertounge, but should the conclusion not be as I understood it "U should pay the programmer to design" but "companies employ good designers as product managers"? Than U don't have any problem with a designer who cannot implement and an implementer who cannot design. PG, what do I miss here that U think a company should make people to do both jobs, if they are most likely just good at one of both?

Kirby 17y ago

Of course, in reality, most people aren't exactly these two extremes, great implementer and great innovator. Everyone has both traits in different amounts, and if you have a functioning team, they can be split up unevenly. In this way of looking at things, I'll freely admit to being more of an implementer. If someone asks for what they want, I'll do my best to make the software do it in a way that's efficient and delights the user. Given vague instructions, I'll do my best, but with mixed results. But when I team up with someone who always has new ideas - I can actually sort through them, figure out which ones will work, which ones will meet the goals, and synthesize them into great product. Most people can't do that with their own ideas. I think the original quote - and it's short, not a full essay, so this criticism is mildly unfair - elevates the innovator too much over the implementer. When in reality, you win when you have both, that know their own strengths and limitations, and are grateful for the other. I produce better work when I pair up with an innovator, and so does he or she. And the two of us will dominate over a dual-innovator team. Also, realize implicitly in everything Paul Graham says, you can add the words, "For a startup technology company." That's what he knows, that's what he values. There's a lot of work out there that needs implementers, and innovators would be frustrated, unsuccessful, and miserable at. Don't feel threatened if you're not Paul Graham's Ideal Entrepreneur/Programmer. I'm not. I'll never be extremely rich, most likely, but I'm happy, good at my job, valued by my company. I say this because opinions like this caused me a _lot_ of self doubt in my early twenties, and they turned out to not be the accurate predictor of DOOM that I feared. If you're smart, and willing to do a good day's work, success is out there - not at a company run by someone like Graham, but he wouldn't have success at a company for you either.

dgallagher 17y ago

He was terribly frustrated he was like this guy who had all kinds of ideas, but he couldn't articulate them with his hand. I've experienced this. Since several years ago I've had tons of idea's for startups I'd like to create. Problem was, I had a business/finance/network engineer background and had no way of actually building anything. It's extremely difficult being stuck like that. Ambitions are polluted by your own limitations. Three years ago a few close friends and I decided to develop a video game using XNA for Xbox 360. We were three programmers, two artists, and myself who handled game design (not a coder). It was a simple game. Basically, you were a guy on a board with a bat and would melee with others, trying to knock them off the board. It was sorta like Nintendo Hockey crossed with Super Smash Brothers in a top-down 2D view. Long story short, the programmers lost interest and the project died after two years of part-time work. The two artists and I were more or less helpless in trying to finish the game, so we had to abandon it. This was a year ago and I was frustrated. I came to the realization that in order to build something, you need to have the idea, and you need to have a means of building it. So I ordered a bunch of books and started to teach myself how to program. Thats enabled me to work on a new startup. Now I can see things much clearer having the ability to write code. That frustration of not being able to build your ideas, or having their destiny out of your control, is completely gone. It's empowering. This quote really rings true to me now: The best programmers are the ones that combine in one head both the ability to translate ideas into code and having the ideas. Just like the best artists have both the ability ... (have) a great hand.

lucifer 17y ago

If only hacker sketches on a napkin looked like this: http://tinyurl.com/y9b5n2d http://tinyurl.com/y9b5n2d

garnet7 17y ago

> When you put the stuff on the wall in a room full of other paintings, it looks like there's a spotlight shining on his paintings and other ones have been sprayed with a light coating of mud. What is this due to? Cezanne's skill with color? Or something else?