Ask HN: How do you stick to projects?

> I always seem to find an excuse as to why it's not worth continuing, right before actually accomplishing anything with the tool/skill in question. ... As such, I spend many days feeling like the donkey in front of the stack of hay and the pail of water.

I can really relate to that. It's necessary to choose something that is not too far out of the comfort zone. Like choosing something novel is good but the majority of the libraries/tools should not be new. That's key to be able to both start and continue a long time. I'd make sure the first proof-of-concept can be done within a month, afterwards I'd either stop the project or continue. Otherwise it's just too frustrating.

Afterwards you can still build stuff on top. If the problem is open ended but has a reachable first plateau that provides a basic use case this can be a nice "rabbit hole project" that you can spend an infinite amount of time on if that's what you're looking for.

That sounds intuitively right. Have an MVP you can completely wrap your head around and just work towards that. Then, build on top. Most projects end up in the bin because I was too ambitious, I should start much smaller then iterate on top. Thank you.

I wish I knew, too.

Every project I've ever done usually involves some sort of major technical hurdle I need to figure out. Once I do, I get that dopamine rush of achieving some sort of technical feat, and then promptly lose interest in fleshing out the project.

For example, I wanted to make a online PC clone of the arcade game Killer Queen (This was before KQ Black came out on PC and Switch), but that meant I needed to figure out how to maintain client/server synchronization while preventing cheating and accounting for latency. Once I figured it out, the next major step was basically fleshing out the game mechanics, as all my tech demo would do is allow people to move around the map and jump. I quickly went "nah, that's too much work" and haven't touched it.

I have definitely considered ADHD, and while correlation != causation, the correlation is of note nonetheless.

> I almost always stick to my projects because they're almost always motivated by a need rather than a fad.

When looking back at my life I now see this pattern as well. The things you end up sticking to are the ones you 'need.' This is something worth taking a look at. Perhaps I should put myself in a position where I would 'need' to complete something, which then would spur me to get ore things done.

And definitely agree on keeping things small and on using the tools you know. These things sound 'obvious' but the temptation to use the latest fad is very strong. Thank you!

I think first of all, you need to understand what you want to get out of your project. It's okay to just explore a thing that seems cool, and if that is all that you want to get out of it, it's okay to abandon that exploration when you're full.

I've gone through a lot of hobbies and projects, and each and every one of them has left me more capable. This is fine. I've also embarked on bigger projects that have taken years.

If you are working for some particular goal, sometimes you need to push yourself a bit too. It isn't always glamorous, you won't always feel inspired; that stuff does wear thin as you get farther along. Sometimes it is a slog, and those days just showing up and going through the motions is plenty. Sometimes breaks can be good too, but they have a habit of becoming indefinite so it's dangerous territory.

> This translates to my work as well, (at a startup) where my title is, quite literally, "generalist." I do stuff ranging from the software side all the way to marketing, sales, and everything in between. It's working for now but I get the feeling it's not viable for the long run.

It is absolutely fine to be a generalist. Having insight into all these areas makes you extremely versatile, and allows you to look at problems in ways no specialist could. Especially at a startup, this is an amazing skillset.