A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#2As controversial as his points are, I feel like Michael O. Church really nails this hypothesis. Startup CEOs are not CEOs in any meaningful sense. Startup CEOs are our equivalent of what division vice-presidents were in the '50s and '60s. They're executives with a certain level of autonomy, to be sure, but they're hardly the independent mavericks that the rhetoric around startups would have you believe. Just like VPs in the old corporate conglomerates were ultimately answerable to the CEO, now our startup "CEOs" are answerable to the VC-appointed boards of directors.
In fact, if you squint your eyes a little, a modern Silicon Valley VC firm looks an awful lot like a corporate conglomerate from the '60s (e.g. 3M).
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#3I don't like this kind of article that presumes that their readers have a choice in this matter. Reminds me of a friend of mine who once naively advised me to only take a job at a company that I would invest my own money in. I said are you kidding me? I've been grinding for months and failing interviews left and right just to get this job and you're telling me don't do it because it's not Google or something?
A huge portion of humans don't have the luxury to say "hmmmm, this startup is ok but myyyeehhh, I kinda like this one better, err idk maybe i'll just go to GiantCorp". I took jobs because they paid me to write code. The story is probably the same for 90% of humans who are doing the best they can in their own situations.
Oh yeah, and the crappy companies I wrote code for years ago? Those are the places that gave me a foundation for a successful career as a programmer. I absolutely could not have done it without them because they were actually willing to invest a little bit in me-- which (in my experience) might not have happened, even at megacorps or unicorn startups.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#4I think the author raises some important and valuable advice that applies to anyone/everyone. It certainly has me wondering about my motives for building a company.
But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups", not the slow-growth or lifestyle approaches that one could alternatively take. When you don't have to impress investors, you can approach things differently. Deadlines are more up to you, and customers are more supportive as long as you're taking care of them.
Customers want a product that solves their problems and requires as little thought as possible to use(at least in Software). VC's want a significant return on their investment. Both have money, but only one of them will continually give you money. Which would you rather aim for?
Anyway, I think its worth reflecting on how the startup will fit into your life, and what kinda time you will put into it. It doesn't HAVE to be 80 hours a week. Doesn't even need to be 40. Success is up to you to define; unless you're playing with someone else's money.
Personally, my goal is rent. If I can build something that can earn me enough money to always cover my monthly rent, that's success for me. Anything beyond that is icing on the cake.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#5I don't like this kind of article that presumes that their readers have a choice in this matter. Reminds me of a friend of mine who once naively advised me to only take a job at a company that I would invest my own money in. I said are you kidding me? I've been grinding for months and failing interviews left and right just to get this job and you're telling me don't do it because it's not Google or something? A huge…
I totally agree. My first job was exactly as you describe. I graduated in 2009, in the teeth of the recession, and every company I applied to had a hiring freeze... except for one, which was known to be a miserable place to work, and known for chewing up programmers and spitting them out after six months to a year of grinding labor. I signed on anyway, because, at the time, I needed a job, any job on my resume. So I took the job, but I was cognizant of the fact that it was a "gig", not a career, and I spent time burnishing my portfolio outside of work, and kept looking. The moment the job market started to thaw, I jumped ship for a modest improvement in pay and a massive improvement in working conditions.
That said, I think you're underestimating how good the job market is for programmers right now. Yes, your first job might suck. But if it does, try to recognize that fact early and make plans to switch companies at the earliest possible moment. Look in other cities (or even other countries) if you must. This is, after all, advice for young programmers, so they're not likely to have houses, family, etc. tying them down to a single location.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#6I think the author raises some important and valuable advice that applies to anyone/everyone. It certainly has me wondering about my motives for building a company. But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups", not the slow-growth or lifestyle approaches that one could alternatively take. When you don't have to impress investors, you can approach things differently. Deadline…
>But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups"
I think startups, as far as Hacker News is concerned, are "go big or go home" businesses. Quoth Paul Graham:
A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not
in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on
technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit." The only
essential thing is growth. Everything else we associate with startups follows
from growth.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#7I still believe that for recent graduates looking to begin their career, there is no better option than to join an early-stage startup. Admittedly, it's like buying a lottery ticket, but if you win you can win very big and give your career a massive boost. On the other hand, if you lose you have still gained valuable career experience equal to or greater than what you could have gained at "GiantCorp". More importantly, early stage startups offer employees a broad but shallow understanding of businesses, versus GiantCorp's narrow but deep understanding. This is important for young employees who may not be 100% sure what they would like to specialize in yet.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#8I think the author raises some important and valuable advice that applies to anyone/everyone. It certainly has me wondering about my motives for building a company. But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups", not the slow-growth or lifestyle approaches that one could alternatively take. When you don't have to impress investors, you can approach things differently. Deadline…
>But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups" I think startups, as far as Hacker News is concerned, are "go big or go home" businesses. Quoth Paul Graham: A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit."…
I'm glad you bring this up.
That's according to Paul Graham, and I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with that definition; nor do i believe it to be the hacker news definition, as that is subject to the collective opinion despite whatever official stances may be taken.
But I recognize that ycombinator is certainly focused on that type of startup, and that they obviously have influence on HN.
But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition; which is why i often find myself highlighting it when it presents itself in a HN link.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
>But, equally I feel the author is speaking of the go-big-or-go-home model of "startups" I think startups, as far as Hacker News is concerned, are "go big or go home" businesses. Quoth Paul Graham: A startup is a company designed to grow fast. Being newly founded does not in itself make a company a startup. Nor is it necessary for a startup to work on technology, or take venture funding, or have some sort of "exit."…
I'm glad you bring this up. That's according to Paul Graham, and I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with that definition; nor do i believe it to be the hacker news definition, as that is subject to the collective opinion despite whatever official stances may be taken. But I recognize that ycombinator is certainly focused on that type of startup, and that they obviously have influence on HN. But it is silly, and u…
> But it is silly, and unhealthy, to solely focus on this narrow definition
So what defines this "startup" thing? How "startup" is different from a "small company"? Because, you know, not everyone opening a business needs to be "startup", and that's OK.
Re: A Letter to a Young Programmer Considering a Startup (2013)
#10There was no mention of what his hypothetical company would do, what problem it would solve for people. His goal was business for the sake of business.
I think it's perfectly valid to want to get into business for its own sake, and not because you have a 'passion' for a specific area. It worked for Richard Branson.
The 'find what you love/do what you love' mantra is an invention of our time.