I think in general it is far easier for a programmer to quite productively spend a day on web design (steal/copy), building a nice user interface, some copywriting or attracting funding; then it is for the non-programmer to spend a day on making software.
Founders who can't code
91–100 of 117 posts
Re: Founders who can't code
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're applying for a job, then I agree. If you're founding a startup, then a business guy needs to be able to clearly and quickly communicate with the developer(s).
One needs to clearly and quickly communicate requirements.
just a list of requirements doesn't cut it.
There are a lot of ways to fill in requirements, a lot of bad ones and very few good ones.
When you ask an author to write a 500 page roman about some dramatic lovestory you have written down in a 5 page requirement document, there are still a lot of things that will be unclear when he is writing it.
When the author hits an unknown he can send you an email, make an assumption or call a meeting.
1 and 3 breaks his workflow, 2 doesn't.
now speed this proces up a 100 times faster and you've got a programmer in the 'zone' with a 5 page requirement list for a fairly complex project. It won't end very well unless you have very short communication lines for the entire duration of the project (or the programmer is reading your mind)
Re: Founders who can't code
#93There's a big difference between the HN stereotype and "real" business people. REAL non-technical co-founders: - Can raise funding and know funders well - Have a massive network of people to tap into - Can cold-call like no-one's business - Know how to negotiate a deal to the point of paranoia - Have deep domain experience and connections - Make plans for the future, but can pivot on a dime - Can talk enough tech to…
Yes, if you're building a B2B company, these skills are invaluable. But you're probably not going to find all of them in the same person.
If you can find a business co-founder with half of the above _plus_ an insane drive to master the remaining half, you'll be better off than most startups.
Re: Founders who can't code
#94I know this is a popular opinion here, but I couldn't disagree more. You're saying that it's good for everyone to try to learn to code. Far from it. Some people are just not cut out to be coders, they suck at it, they hate doing it, and they don't WANT to do it. More than half of my intro CS class was just like that, and they dropped out. If you're a non-technical founder, and have money, it's perfectly ok for you to…
I agree.
I'd almost argue that it can be a bad thing - I've lost count of the number of times I've been stitched up by someone with a small level of knowledge who extrapolated incorrectly from it. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing as often as it can be useful and in 6 months that's all you're going to get (actually in six months coming from nothing you're going to know way less than most graduates and how many people consider that a decent skill level?).
Good founders should bring intelligence and an ability to learn quickly to the table, they should be willing to trust the experts they hire, but I think saying that they should be able to program is a very programmer centric view and no more valid than the sales guy saying you should go sell for 6 months, or the account saying you should be a book keeper for 6 months.
Sure these things are useful but it's perfectly possible to be successful without it and I'd suggest that it wouldn't be close to the best use of 6 months.
Re: Founders who can't code
#95You will NOT become an engineer, programmer, or web developer, but you will be able to put a prototype of your idea together and maybe get one or two beta users for feedback... You will also be able to have an intelligent conversation with a developer. I get sad whenever I encounter a business person with no technical bullshit filter. Not because I'm judging them, but because if I can bullshit them, any other develop…
+1 on this. If you learn enough to do a bad job building your prototype, you will learn what you don't know. Right now you don't even know what you don't know. Also, you can't hire someone for a job you know nothing about. Doing (even a poor) job on your prototype will teach you to evaluate a technical co-founder.
That's one scenario.
The other is you muddle through, learn a bit and do an OK job pulling together the prototype. Sure it doesn't look exactly right but you can log in, see some records, make some updates and it's all fine in demos and pitches - hell you've even stuck it on the web for friends to poke and prod.
You now think it's all straight forward and you're nearly there. The whole this isn't secure, is held together with sticky tape, updates aren't transactional so when something does go wrong the data is left in a mess, it has no error handling or referential integrity and won't scale beyond half a dozen users which is all it's ever had to put up with as a prototype but you've only been coding for six months so you hardly understand that these problems even exist let alone understand what's involved in solving them.
Personally I really really don't want to be the tech lead who has to then deal with someone who knows way less than they think and is being told that the thing needs to be rewritten and by doing so is not only delivering bad news but is also having to criticise the persons own personal work.
Some CEOs will benefit from this sort of knowledge, others will be damaged by it - there is no simple rule.
Re: Founders who can't code
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
One needs to clearly and quickly communicate requirements.
just a list of requirements doesn't cut it. There are a lot of ways to fill in requirements, a lot of bad ones and very few good ones. When you ask an author to write a 500 page roman about some dramatic lovestory you have written down in a 5 page requirement document, there are still a lot of things that will be unclear when he is writing it. When the author hits an unknown he can send you an email, make an assumpti…
Here's another idea. Instead of saying that the only way someone could possibly communicate with a developer is on the developer's terms by learning to program, why not employ developers who can communicate with non-developers?
Yes it's important to create the best possible working environment for a programmer and give them the best information, but in this example the founder / CEO / visionary is actually the scarce resource and the aim should be to get him working as effectively as possible. Six months of his time to learn to program is a huge and expensive (in opportunity terms) commitment when part of that should be picked up by the programmer spending time filling in the gaps.
It's not how you get the most out of the programmer that matters, it's how you get the most out of the whole team and sometimes that's going to involve individuals having to work in ways which are to them non-optimal.
Re: Founders who can't code
#97Honestly, I can't see what the fuss is about. There are plenty of examples of successful companies with founders who could all code, or a mix, and even a couple instances where no founders could code.
Do these sweeping generalizations do any good? No doubt, it helps to know at least some coding in this business, but isn't that just common sense? And even if someone disagreed with that sentiment, would they take this to heart anyway?
This is one thing that bothers me about HN. There is a lot of advice here that seems to be just that. I love checking out people's work, the sharing of actual trials and tribulations, and learning about developments in the industry; but you know what they say about opinions and assholes... everybody has them.
Re: Founders who can't code
#98cofounder learning to code! agree absolutely!
Re: Founders who can't code
#99Thanks for posting this. As a entrepreneur I couldn't agree more with your opinion. Previously although I work in a technology field, I was pretty functional. That is, my knowledge of coding began and ended at SQL and HTML. But on the same note, years of doing custom applications with developer teams educated me on the 'lingo' and what could and could not be done (at least, not easily).
Over the past year, we had many 'business' persons who offered to help out, and while that was awesome, what we really needed was qualified technical people. For a 'business' person, one can usually get an unpaid college intern and not have to sacrifice any shares in the company.
Also, I think as functional person you are somewhat "over the barrel" if your developers dont perform, and can do nothing except complain. I do believe it's better overall if you can build your own product. At the end of the day, we decided to educate our own team in Ruby/Rails rather than bring in outside developers. I think this was a smart decision, and also a more cost effective solution.
I definitely suggest other start ups do the same.
Re: Founders who can't code
#100I don't think the standard CRUD web app is necessarily what will make an exciting startup. That would more likely be some new twist. Also, I can feel with business types who say it doesn't make sense for them to learn coding. In a way I am in a similar situation, as I am constantly extremely hampered by my lack of design skills. Should I try to become a designer? I admit to trying now and them (decided today to go th…
When you strip away the scalability infrastructure, isn't Twitter just a CRUD app? For some people they would seem to epitomize an "exciting startup".